Re^2: foreach argument modification inside loop, followed by return from loop

because I can’t imagine why you would want to pop the last element off of an array if any element in it equals '2.

Don't try to analyze code logic. It's a proof-of-concept code. Perl does not care about it's logic when execute it, so you should not too.

clarity

So, if don't wish to see proof-of-concept code without any sane logic, perhaps you want to see real code, here it is.
do_finish() removes element from @{$self->{jobs_a}}, after that we exit "for" loop in get_task().
Do you think it will be more clear if it will return number of element to remove, and we remove it outside for loop?

Comment on Re^2: foreach argument modification inside loop, followed by return from loop

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: foreach argument modification inside loop, followed by return from loop by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jul 10, 2013 at 14:49 UTC
Do you think it will be more clear if it will return number of element to remove, and we remove it outside for loop? Yes, IMHO. My approach, using my own conventions, would be something like this (untested): `sub do_finish { my $self = shift; my ($jobid_to_delete) = @_; delete $self->{jobs_h}->{$jobid_to_delete}; my $i_to_delete; my $ar_jobs_a = $self->{jobs_a}; JID: for my $i (0 .. $#$ar_jobs_a) { my $jid = $ar_jobs_a->[$i]{jobid}; next JID unless $jid == $jobid_to_delete; $i_to_delete = $i; last JID; } splice @$ar_jobs_a, $i_to_delete, 1 if defined $i_to_delete; return @$ar_jobs_a ? 'ok' : 'done'; }` [download] Update: Renamed `$jobid` to `$jobid_to_delete` in interests of self-documentation.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: foreach argument modification inside loop, followed by return from loop by vsespb (Chaplain) on Jul 10, 2013 at 14:59 UTC
Yes, perhaps.	[reply]
Re^3: foreach argument modification inside loop, followed by return from loop by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jul 12, 2013 at 04:19 UTC
vsespb, I sense that you have taken-offense at my comment, and I therefore wish to hasten to say that I meant nothing “personal” by it. You see, through most of my career, I have dealt with “old code.” None of the programmers who wrote the original code are still there ... they have moved on, and the legacy systems (of course) have not. Therefore I am constantly (and quite impersonally ... every author is presumed to be a Consummate Pro) “looking for funny smells.” I don’t mean anything negative in my description of the sort of things that I have learned to look-for in source code. Have I, or has anyone on this planet, written code that smells every bit as badly? Alas, I have but one answer.