Re^6: What's so wrong with this (dereferencing)code?

As purely a side note:

I stuffed a lot of date/time/datetime/timestamp code i use into wrappers in a central module of my framework. It's not the best for performance, but it helps during testing. It's quite astonishing for how much timestamp based crap you have to test in commercial 24/7 applications, including leap years, DST changes etc.

And plainly wrong system times, because some clueless admin didn't understand NTP and firewalled it. And just playing with the system time isn't enough, because the database server in production might have a different time than the application server. During dev, everything runs on a single laptop, so i need a single place where i can fudge the time functions in Perl, so i can test if i accidently mix local and remote timestamps...

PerlMonks XP is useless? Not anymore: XPD - Do more with your PerlMonks XP
Also check out my sisters artwork and my rather simple sketches/one-panel comics

Comment on Re^6: What's so wrong with this (dereferencing)code?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: What's so wrong with this (dereferencing)code? by LanX (Saint) on Jun 27, 2024 at 13:25 UTC
I think you are referring to loading a bunch of modules at once to avoid boilerplating. Again, that's ok as long as it's explicitly documented. And normally it's only a "dependency of second degree", looking into the container module will directly reveal the target modules. And (hopefully) the container will have a clear name. I've seen some counterexamples in my work life with "try and error" code which was considered "working" because it didn't fail at time of coding. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^7: What's so wrong with this (dereferencing)code?
by LanX (Saint) on Jun 27, 2024 at 13:25 UTC

Again, that's ok as long as it's explicitly documented.

And normally it's only a "dependency of second degree", looking into the container module will directly reveal the target modules. And (hopefully) the container will have a clear name.

I've seen some counterexamples in my work life with "try and error" code which was considered "working" because it didn't fail at time of coding.

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

see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

[reply]