On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:29:41 -0400, John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >
> > If I could, I would VETO!
>
> If I could, I would mandate this change. This is definitely in my
> Top 10 List of Perl 5 Suckinesses.
So here we differ. That's what discussions are for.
> > This would break about 90% of my scripts.
>
> Some large percentage of your scripts is going to break anyway.
Hope not. I have grown a habit of pretty clean programming, using -w and use
strict all the way.
> > I use the same name for different
> > type of variables to group them:
>
> Imho, this is A Bad Practice. Making it impossible would therefore
> be Good, existing-script-breakage not withstanding.
I think you cannot say "A bad practice". It's a way of thinking. I'm glad
Tom's with me on this, except that he refers to global variables that might be
deemed anyway.
We're not thinking like in C where every variable `should' be prefixed with
it's type, like p_var for a pointer to a variable or t_var for defining the
type for var. In perl I just LOVE the way $, @, % and & unambiguously defines
the type of the var. I just miss a prefix for formats (which will be dropped
anyway) and IO.
I'd hate to see my code being converted to (as suggested):
$foo__array = qw(monday tuesday wednesday thursday friday saturday
sunday);
$foo = 4;
print $foo__array[$foo], "\n";
YUK!
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://www.amsterdam.pm.org/)
using perl5.005.03, 5.6.0 & 516 on HP-UX 10.20, HP-UX 11.00, AIX 4.2, AIX 4.3,
DEC OSF/1 4.0 and WinNT 4.0 SP-6a, often with Tk800.022 and/or DBD-Unify
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/languages/perl/CPAN/authors/id/H/HM/HMBRAND/
