No, No, NO! Symbolic references are not stupid, just extremely powerful. There are many perfectly smart reasons to use symbolic references. It just so happens that 99% of all of the actual usages are stupid.
It's kinda like saying C-style for-loops are stupid. Well, for the most part, Perl-style foreach-loops do whatever C-style ones do and better with more checking and the like. And, in those cases, it is stupid to use the C-style one. But, and I'm sure I'm not alone, there are a ton of "boundary" cases where the C-style one may be preferable for a number of reasons (like the Perl-style one doesn't do what I need, etc).
Never use absolutes - there's always a counter-example. *grins*
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.
Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.
Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.
In reply to Re6: How do I determine the underlying type of an Object?
by dragonchild
in thread How do I determine the underlying type of an Object?
by jaa
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |