So, here I am, happily writing a nice simple little CGI to retrive some a row from a database. It's easy. I've tested the SQL statements. I've tested the perl. Everything is fine, so long as I don't include the parameter. It's a simple parameter too. $id is the parameter, it's nice and easy to remember. $pid is the name of the parameter on the form in the html. So, guess what I've been using? $pid when I meant to be using $id.

Moral of the story: Don't rely on strict. It's only there to help you doing dumb things. If you insist on stupidity, it can't help.

Edit kudra, 2001-10-24 Changed title; removed broken HTML

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: sometimes use strict isn't enough
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 24, 2001 at 16:58 UTC
    What this says is that strict is good ... good programming techniques are better.
    1. Use meaningful (read: unmistakeable) variable names
    2. Declare things in the smallest scope they can be used in.
    I suspect that had you used #2, strict might've caught it for you.

    ------
    We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

    Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.

[reply]
Re: sometimes use strict isn't enough
by rob_au (Abbot) on Oct 24, 2001 at 12:44 UTC
    *chuckle* ... This is one which -w would probably have picked up for you depending on the scoping of the variables involved.

    I meditated on a similar point recently here following a review of some code I was looking at for another project.

     

    Ooohhh, Rob no beer function well without!

[reply]
[d/l]
(jeffa) Re: sometimes use strict isn't enough
by jeffa (Bishop) on Oct 25, 2001 at 02:01 UTC
    What you are refering to is the difference between compile-time errors and run-time errors. use strict does not catch run-time errors. Matter of, fact, the only thing that can catch run-time errors is a pair of eyes - someone else's pair of eyes usually sees it before your pair of eyes!! :D (figuratively speaking)

    Good example, Perl will happily compile and run this without complaining in the least - bonus points for an explanation why: 

    foreach (@list) {
  $conn-do("insert into foo values($_)") || die;
}

    [download]
    when i really meant this: 
    foreach (@list) {
  $conn->do("insert into foo values($_)") || die;
}

    [download]
    So, DO rely on strict to check for the things that strict can verify. It's your brain that you shouldn't rely on - mine get's me in trouble every time at least ;)

    jeffa

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      One slight correction...

      strict 'subs' and strict 'vars' run their checks at compile time, but the third goblin in that group strict 'refs' enables runtime checks.

      (sorry, I was inspired by the dancing skeleton on your homenode ...... ;-) )

      Consider the following code, which will toss a strict error during runtime, depending on the flip of a coin: 

      #!/usr/bin/perl -wT
use strict;

use vars qw($foo $bar);

$foo = 'x';
$bar = int(rand(2)) ? 'foo' : \$foo;

print $$bar, "\n";

=OUTPUT (when rand==0)
x

=OUTPUT (when rand==1)
Can't use string ("foo") as a SCALAR ref 
while "strict refs" in use at ./strictrefs.pl
line 9.

      [download]

      -Blake

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

Back to Meditations