Re^2: Style Question: Throwaway Objects

Just to nitpick: you're leaving a lexical $parser around that the condensed form doesn't, so it is actually equivalent to

my $book;
{
    my $parser = Spreadsheet::ParseExcel->new()
    $book = $parser->Parse($filename);
}
[download]

or, as I'd prefer,

my $book = do {
    my $parser = Spreadsheet::ParseExcel->new()
    $parser->Parse($filename);
};
[download]

logically followed by

my $book = do {
    my $parser = Spreadsheet::ParseExcel->new()
    $parser
}->Parse($filename);
[download]

which is (and here's the important step) obviously equivalent to my $book = do { Spreadsheet::ParseExcel->new() }->Parse($filename); which is trivially equivalent to my $book = Spreadsheet::ParseExcel->new()->Parse($filename); Tightly scoping with a block instead is generally better practice. The garbage collector will clean up after you without any extra effort on your side anyway.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^2: Style Question: Throwaway Objects Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Style Question: Throwaway Objects by dws (Chancellor) on Dec 09, 2002 at 02:44 UTC
Just to nitpick: you're leaving a lexical $parser around that the condensed form doesn't Well, yes. But compared to turning a very readable `my $parser = Spreadsheet::ParseExcel->new() my $book = $parser->Parse($filename);` [download] into a double-take inducing `my $book = do { Spreadsheet::ParseExcel->new() }->Parse($filename);` leaving a lexical around is a minor sin. When I have to choose between various sins, I'll go with the one that's readable.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Style Question: Throwaway Objects by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 09, 2002 at 09:06 UTC
That was just the last in a series of transformations showing the equivalence of the samples - I'd probably pick the first one: `my $book; { my $parser = Spreadsheet::ParseExcel->new(); $book = $parser->Parse($filename); }` [download] Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply] [d/l]