On Jan 23, Timothy Johnson said:
> I'd agree that this is an inefficient way of doing this, but the
>link you're giving is not a good example to send people to. The code given
>will not create the kind of situation described, even if it does create less
>readable code. Perhaps a better idea would be to give an example of the
>same snippet using a hash or array of arrays?
Making any variable from any other variable is the same generic principle,
so the article is fine in its presentation.
Using ${ "array$i" }[$x] is the same idea as @{ "array$i" } which is the
same idea as @$name where $name is "array$i". It's poor programming
practice.
>Side note to the author of the article: It's a bad idea in general to
>describe anything you disagree with as 'stupid' if your intent is to
>actually convey your point of view to someone else. It's argumentative,
>undescriptive, and unnecessary.
MJD is well-respected in the Perl field, and I think he has the authority
to use whatever language he feels necessary. Calling symbolic references
"poor programming practice" is not as strong and effective as calling it
"stupid". The articles show WHY it is insecure and stupid.
"Marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting" and "given to
unintelligent decisions or acts" seem like valid definitions of
"stupid" that can be applied to this poor programming practice.
--
Jeff "japhy" Pinyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~japhy/
RPI Acacia brother #734 http://www.perlmonks.org/ http://www.cpan.org/
** Look for "Regular Expressions in Perl" published by Manning, in 2002 **
<stu> what does y/// stand for? <tenderpuss> why, yansliterate of course.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
