Re: (Ovid) Re(2): ref, no, maybe?


Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
	PerlMonks

Re: (Ovid) Re(2): ref, no, maybe?

by merlyn (Sage)

on Jan 11, 2001 at 05:22 UTC ( [id://51048]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to (Ovid) Re(2): ref, no, maybe?
in thread ref, no, maybe?

My gut level feel is that being overly flexible on input parameters is often a sign of premature optimization. And yes, a "ref" in the code means you're looking in the mirror just a little too hard, most often. There are clearly valid uses for ref, but the first reaction I always have is "can we simplify this", and as you discovered, you could.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

Comment on Re: (Ovid) Re(2): ref, no, maybe?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re (tilly) 4: ref, no, maybe?
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jan 11, 2001 at 05:54 UTC

It may take some attention and focus to see what Randal is talking about here, but the point came up several times in the Re (tilly) 1: Supersplit thread. Basically making things magic makes them more complex to implement and harder to learn. Remember that the most complex bugs to track down are at your interfaces and think twice before making those interfaces needlessly difficult to figure out.

Sometimes it is worth breaking this rule, but (like most rules) not without specific good reason.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom