What technical arguments are there for discouraging bareword filehandles?
There's the lack of scoping. You could use open(local *FOO, ...) to protect the caller, though. So I guess the real problem is that lack of scope-enforcement under use strict;.
Also, they're very low on the totem pole, so they can end up meaning something unexpected.
In reply to Re^4: On Backwards Compatibility and Bareword Filehandles
by ikegami
in thread On Backwards Compatibility and Bareword Filehandles
by jcb
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |