in reply to Re^4: scandns.pl
in thread scandns.pl

Greetings, jdporter.

I just now copied the source from this page. Then only removed the
($x==4)
from the offending line, and replaced it with your proposed solution
($x=0)
then ran it;

% ./scandns.pl 209.197.123.153/29
209.197.123.153 is an invalid address
%

[download]
I have no idea. The only possible difference(s) I can imagine, would be

   * differing OS's
   * differing versions of: IO::Socket or Net::Netmask
   * differing versions of Perl itself

Sincerely confused.

Best wishes.

--Chris

#!/usr/bin/perl -Tw
use Perl::Always or die;
my $perl_version = (5.12.5);
print $perl_version;

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: scandns.pl
by jdporter (Paladin) on Nov 15, 2013 at 01:50 UTC

    Please read my original reply again. My suggested fix was not to replace
    ($x==4)
    with
    ($x==0)

    but to replace
    my $x;
    with
    my $x=0;

    All I can say is, if this is the accuracy with which you approach programming, I would never hire you.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      In all fairness to both of us;

      Your last statement: 

      Please read my original reply again. My suggested fix was not to repla
+ce
($x==4)
with
($x==0)

but to replace
my $x;
with
my $x=0;

      [download]

      I think if you carefully go back over all this, you'll see neither of us suggested: 

      ($x==4)
with
($x==0)

      [download]

      I'm going to take this opportunity to suggest that we'd both do well to drop this.

      It's all beginning to seem pretty silly. Don't you think? :)

      Best wishes, jdporter.

      --Chris

      #!/usr/bin/perl -Tw
use Perl::Always or die;
my $perl_version = (5.12.5);
print $perl_version;
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

        Whatever; s/($x==0)/($x=0)/; Either way, you completely misunderstood what I was suggesting. Did you start over with my fix as suggested?

        But you're right, this is silly, mainly because the OP's code is pile of crap which no good programmer would write, so it hardly seems worthwhile to go to any trouble to eliminate an 'undefined' warning it produces.

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Code Catacombs