I restrained myself from voting on the node, but the reason *I* did not like it is because it refers the user to a book for one. There is not need for a book, even an old one, when online pod is better.

The "read this book" is not that big a deal to me anymore (I can ignore it in most cases), but when I saw:

Then, add "require 'dumpvar.pl';" at the top of your program, and use "dumpValue(ref);" to see how your data is stored.

I thought WTF?!? but still managed not to vote.

First off what is 'dumpvar.pl'?

Where can someone get 'dumpvar.pl'?

You neither provide link, nor say it's part of the examples of the o'reilly book. Then you go to describe how to use dumpVal and what to expect. I didn't even factor in the fact Data::Dumper, like other have pointed out, has surpassed and replaced what dumpvar might once have held for the o'reilly readers (even thought it was only an example -- for learning purposes even).

Then you say

The reading was good, but what really helps me when I get lost in my code is to use dumpValue to see what's really going on.

That's great, but I doubt the poster of the original thread benefitted from your reply. Hes probably scratching his head wondering what this 'dumpvar' this is.

Some might argue everybody has read How to RTFM and loves to use http://google.com/, and .... but I feel, that regardless of the skills of your posters skills, when talking about specific programs/modules/literature, it is best to provide links, or if common enough, say "thisorthat is common enough, that if you look for thisorthat in a search engine, you'll find tons of stuff about it."

Maybe I'm being harsh, or a hypocrite, or whatever, but that is what comes to mind as to *reasons*why* someone might -- you.

I hope this has been *insightful*

 

______crazyinsomniac_____________________________ Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. perl -e "$q=$_;map({chr unpack qq;H*;,$_}split(q;;,q*H*));print;$q/$q;"