Thanks for the posts so far.
I've searched the perl-porters mailing list archive. Other
than obfuscated .sigs, etc., I've only found one
thought-provoking mention (in a comment in a patch) of %_.
The author says (something like) "Someday, we may have to
change the %_ hack."
Anyone know if %_ has a specific purpose, or is it an artifact
of the typeglob creation, per takshaka?
Since _ variables ($_, @_) hold arguments, would %_ make
intuitive sense to you as "the variable holding named
arguments"? It really was a random thought, but since I
thoroughly enjoy learning idiomatic Perl, this idea struck
me with some force.
Other than declaring it local (which suggests some deeper
meaning in and of itself), how would you feel about code
(a subroutine) which stores its named arguments in %_?
Does this help or hinder self-documentation?
P.S. Why can't I "maintain" my original post? I would prefer
to simply edit it, rather than make a new post for updates...
Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big>
<blockquote> <br /> <dd>
<dl> <dt> <em> <font>
<h1> <h2> <h3> <h4>
<h5> <h6> <hr /> <i>
<li> <nbsp> <ol> <p>
<small> <strike> <strong>
<sub> <sup> <table>
<td> <th> <tr> <tt>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in
<code> tags not
<pre> tags. In fact, <pre>
tags should generally be avoided. If they must
be used, extreme care should be
taken to ensure that their contents do not
have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent
horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor
Want more info? How to link
or How to display code and escape characters
are good places to start.