In my opinion, the no strict 'refs' solution is the obvious and easy one, and so far the only arguments I have seen against it have been from superstition.
Just for arguments sake :-)
In this module we do not want any arbritary subroutine executed. We just want the "format token" subroutines executable.
At the moment this is not made explicit - it's implicit in the fact that FETCH can only execute single letter functions, and all the format token functions are single letter functions.
We could document this in POD or a comment, but my personal coding philosophy is to, as much as possible, have the code document itself.
As soon as we do:
my %lookup = ( a => \&a, D => \&d, X => \&X, x => \&x, d => \&d, ... );
we make the subroutines we want to execute explicit in the code. This is a good thing - and hopefully not just superstition :-)
While I would immediately refactor the subs into the hash as anonymous subroutines I think that that first step is a useful one - and not just monkey code.
In reply to Re^2: Puzzled about strict
by adrianh
in thread Puzzled about strict
by webengr
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |