On 4/11/07, Chas Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/11/07, Tom Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my $header_is_complete; # starts out false
Is there a reason you are not using an our variable instead of a my variable:
TIMTOWTDI. The scope is different, of course; but which scope one prefers seems largely a matter of style, driven by the ways in which the programmer imagines using the variable. Earlier in my response to the OP, I had suggested using a fully-qualified variable; that offers similar scoping to that of an 'our' variable. Doing it that way would be another style.
Or even better using a block to hide that variable from other functions:
That's also a good way to affect scope. Doing it that way could also be good style. In this case, I didn't need to hide that variable with a block in the example code, partly because I told how to do so in the text. In this case, I think you may have been misled by the presence of the code within the text. My intent was to show several alternative ways for the OP to choose among. I wrote the code merely to illustrate a technique that would have been hard to explain clearly without code. Including that code among other techniques needn't imply that I necessarily endorse that particular style as the ideal method of solving the OP's problem. If I had been able to describe each alternative technique without using code, or if I had written an explicit example for each possibility, there wouldn't be this confusion. Having only one piece of example code emphasised that style unduly, and diminished the others. Nevertheless, having written that one example and the documentation on its scoping issues, I was (and still am) content with it. Here's to good style! --Tom Phoenix Stonehenge Perl Training -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/
