NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
every Perl script that says:
"Don't be stupid."
--Larry Wall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Re: (Score:1)
What silly complaints.
for ( @foo ){ print "$_\n" }is fine butprint "$_\n" for @foo;is not? The obfuscatory bit, if there is one, is Perl’s strange attractor, the$_.I never followed the argument that trailing control flow constructs are somehow obfuscatory. What kind of retard does someone have to be if they understand
if( $foo ) { bar( $baz ) }but is totally lost as soon as it’s writtenbar( $baz ) if $foo? I’m not using “retard” in the name-calling sense either; I meanThe Mark of a Great Programming Language (Score:1)
Clearly the mark of a great programming language (if you're not a Lisp hacker anyway) is when a complete idiot who's never programmed before could maintain your code, not that that's pretty much the anti-pattern or anything.
(You should name your default variable
$itso everyone knows it's a pronoun.)Re: (Score:1)
An entire paragraph written using “it” as the subject in every sentence isn’t very readable. There are good reasons to want to use a named iterator variable. Mind, I don’t think
$_is inherently obfuscatory and I have no qualms about using it, though I do consider each case carefully. If you’re iterating over a list returned directly from a somewhat complex expression, then a well-named iterator helps document intent. And there’s only one$_, so in those cases where needRe: (Score:1)
I agree. That also falls under my rule of "don't hire people who don't know what they're doing".
Reply to This
Parent