Re^4: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs

Here's a one-liner where Perl emits two warnings - both wrong.

 
$ perl -le 'use warnings; print ("$_") for qw /foo, #bar/'
print (...) interpreted as function at -e line 1.
Possible attempt to separate words with commas at -e line 1.
[download]

And yes, I know what the warnings are for. And I know how to code around them. The warnings are still wrong though.

Perl --((8:>*

Comment on Re^4: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Anonymous Monk on Nov 17, 2005 at 17:17 UTC
That still seems like bad form to me. Imagine someone comes along and tries to extend it... `use warnings; print ("$_")."blah" for qw /foo, #bar, BAZ/` [download] Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. (Not that I'm implying that you should never turn off warnings. The OP's code isn't one of those times though).	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Nov 17, 2005 at 17:29 UTC
Huh? What's your point? Valid code throwing warnings prevents someone from introducing bugs? `Perl --((8:>*`	[reply]
Re^7: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Anonymous Monk on Nov 17, 2005 at 17:52 UTC
The point is, seeing code like that lets a maintenance programmer know that the original coder isn't that familiar with Perl, and to tread with caution, because there are undoubtedly obscure bugs lurking around.	[reply]
Re^8: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Nov 18, 2005 at 09:32 UTC


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks