Re^10: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ?

> If you put a block around a file-scope lexical, it is not a file-scope lexical anymore.

My point was that the scope of lexical variables can be easily limited.

You can't our FHs to limit the scope so you'd need different packages.

> only by educating the programmers about the language in which they write.

Well we wouldn't need any other languages if programmers were educated enough to use assembler.

FHs need a lot of extra technique, educating a new programmer about all the tricks needed takes a while, without extra benefit.

Discouraging their use doesn't mean changing the language.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^10: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? by bliako (Abbot) on Jul 08, 2020 at 08:15 UTC
Well we wouldn't need any other languages if programmers were educated enough to use assembler. It's a matter of productivity as well.	[reply]
Re^12: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? by LanX (Saint) on Jul 08, 2020 at 14:30 UTC
> It's a matter of productivity as well That's what I tried to imply. :) BTW: You can be extremely productive in assembler with the right set of macros, but those macro sets finally evolve to a language like C. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^13: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ? by bliako (Abbot) on Jul 09, 2020 at 06:46 UTC
yes sorry, I missed the part about technique.	[reply]