> > don't understand when one could do the > > 'is given($_)' and not do the ($_ = $_). > > Any time that the caller's topic isn't > supposed to be explicitly passed as an > argument, but is still used within the > subroutine. > > [example] > > And, yes, I could make it an optional > argument, but them I have no way of > preserving my chosen interface. Or > porting that code cleanly.
Well, it would mean the interface gets the additional facet that the caller can /optionally/ explicitly pass $_. I'd call that a benefit, not a problem. What's the issue with porting cleanly? > Besides all that, ($_ = $_) where $_ > means something different from $_ > is Just Plain Wrong. ;-) Well, I don't see it in quite that strong a tone. One could argue that the context of the rhs of assignments in the arg list is /naturally/ the caller's. But I agree it might cause a good ppl to double-take, because of the way it looks. More importantly, it doesn't seem LOUD enough for what it's doing. Unless it doesn't need to be loud because one sorts out the issue of protecting against potential problems by requiring some explicit marking at the caller's end, as I suggested in my recent "Access to caller's topic" post. -- ralph
