So when you "tested" this ... you saw the "keys on reference is experimental" warning .... Otherwise your code didn't compile at all ...
I don't know what Perl version sundialsvc4 was using, but I tested the code under Perl 5.14 and it works as advertised.
I and many others have long had a problem with sundialsvc4: he so often just doesn't seem to know what the hell he's talking about. Even when I occasionally encounter a post of his that seems, at first glance, to make a valid point, I have gotten into the habit of simply passing on by: I've been bitten too often by bugs and gotchas that only become apparent on closer inspection or through the replies of others to risk upvoting.
Lately, I've seen a couple of his posts that are so clear, straighforward and helpful that I've upvoted them; this is one. Of course, a note about the "highly experimental" nature of keys EXPR would have been nice and there's still a bit of bloviation, but you can't have everything. There's code, compilable, runnable code that works as described, and a few valid points! sundialsvc4 takes up so much bandwidth on this site that it's a shame his contributions haven't been correspondingly worthwhile. Is a new day dawning? I hope so, and I think any effort in that direction is worth encouraging.
Give a man a fish: <%-{-{-{-<
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
There's code, compilable, runnable code that works as described
But if, and only if, you happen to be running one of a few select versions of perl which support it. Try compiling with perl newer than 5.22 or older than 5.14 and see how you get on.
You could call this ignorance or an oversight on the point of sundialsvc4 except that he specifically said, in italics no less, that it was "tested". Which means he ran it, saw the warning and ignored it. He didn't investigate further and he didn't even mention it in the post. That's bad enough but when you consider he's supposedly trying to help a new perl coder - someone who hasn't read the FAQs and is asking about a well-trodden topic - do you still think it is well-intentioned?
That's a rhetorical question. Having pointed this out again I'll contribute no further to this subthread.
| [reply] |
Yes, AnomalousMonk ++, I fully agree. I have also upvoted Sundial twice in about half a day.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |