in reply to You don't even need to do that (was Re: Template::Toolkit: better way to generate variable names?)
in thread Template::Toolkit: better way to generate variable names?

However (from my CGI.pm),

NOTE: As of version 1.5, the array of parameter names returned will be in the same order as they were submitted by the browser. Usually this order is the same as the order in which the parameters are defined in the form (however, this isn't part of the spec, and so isn't guaranteed).

I don't think you can rely 100% on this behaviour, especially if you are going to submit foo_1, bar_1, foo_2, bar_2, etc.

  • Comment on Re: You don't even need to do that (was Re: Template::Toolkit: better way to generate variable names?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: You don't even need to do that (was Re: Template::Toolkit: better way to generate variable names?)
by geektron (Curate) on Aug 07, 2003 at 05:06 UTC
    I don't think you can rely 100% on this behaviour, especially if you are going to submit foo_1, bar_1, foo_2, bar_2, etc.
    that's pretty much my point in appending the indicator numbers. i don't want to depend too much on side-effects. the usually part of the perldoc is what bothers me. i need always, not usually

    plus, there are about 7 other variables which go along with the set. so ... i need to remain defensive about data integrity.

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom