Janek Schleicher wrote:
> Drieux wrote at Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:07:51 +0200:
>
>
>>p2: but I will religiously stand by the driving thesis:
>>
>> "would you really want to maintain that code?"
>>
>>having come back and 'blanched' at code that was no longer as 'readable' as it had
>once been....
>>made comical by the fact that friends of mine who were once 'hot perlers' now have
>to 'check the
>>docs' to verify some sequence I have whipped out - because they are no longer 'as in
>it every
>>day'.
>
>
> As it is a religious question,
> there are only correct answers foreclosing each other :D
>
> I'd like to maintain that code,
> and I wouldn't like to maintain the other form of code,
> allthough your point of view is correct, too,
> especially thinking to "cold perlers".
>
Possibly just a matter of what you used first?? I started with the form
drieux suggested, and only recently (this past week) at a new employer
ran across the first form, which I naturally then inquired about, and
immediately felt that it was a poor choice (maintainability of a new
user) as my original notions were threatened. Funny that this would
then come up in a thread here... The point, I think really whatever you
have found first, will naturally be the comfort zone, though having
looked at a lot of code in the last couple of days using the new (for
me) format while it is still not *as* comfortable for me, I feel in the
future I won't feel "threatened" by its presence.
One other point, with people who do not pay close attention to their
variable names, or poor spellers, the $1, $2, etc. method may prove more
efficient from a devel standpoint as it will likely introduce fewer
mistakes of this kind since perl is handling the naming, etc.
http://danconia.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
