I just wrote some code that looks like this:
my @logs = <LOGFILE>; chomp @logs; #XXX: map { &mung_log_entry($_) }, @logs;
Now, this isn't really the same kind of "commented-out code in production" that we've been arguing about; it's more of a pseudocode comment to tell me that I've been thinking about munging up each log entry after reading them all in. In this case, I think that writing the comment as "code" is more legible (mostly in that it doesn't break up the flow of code on the page) than writing in a little note in prose:
my @logs = <LOGFILE>; chomp @logs; # Mung up each log entry?
Eh. Matter of opinion, I guess. I think that the "code" comment more accurately conveys what I was thinking at the moment (even if it is an Evil Use of map In A Void Context -- hey, I said it was pseudocode).
Update:Yes, foreach would be clearer than map, but I've been thinking in terms of map lately.
--In reply to Re: Commented out production code?
by FoxtrotUniform
in thread Commented out production code?
by t'mo
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |