...not only is it possible to pick up some truely disgusting habits, you need a grounding in something more formal if you are to really understand what Perl is doing.
++, oshalla, for your other helpful advice, but not without taking exception to the quoted observation!
I have no real quibble with your "possible" re "truly disgusting habits" (NB: in English there's no 'e' in 'truly.') except to note that's pretty much also "possible" to write effectively - if inelegantly - despite misspellings -- whether writing narrative or text. Conversly "proofs" of almost any proposition can be so badly conceived or structured as to be worthless despite having the appearance of proper form or even superficial plausibility.
However, IMO, to suggest that it's not possible to understand "what Perl is doing" without formal study of another language for "grounding" is extreme, to say nothing of "unproven!"
In reply to Re^2: Control Structure problem, mistake can't be found
by ww
in thread Control Structure problem, mistake can't be found
by koolgirl
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |