Re^2: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected

Modifying the program is not inherently harmful, and in my opinion, modifying code that does not run under strict is usually a good idea. Not that all programs should be made to run under strict, but the fact is that it prevents a lot of subtle bugs that might not come up in normal debugging at all.

As to the problem in the original question, I'd like to ask 'why' too; why make the iteration variable global? Call-by-value is really not that expensive, and if you feel it is, use $_[0].

Comment on Re^2: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jun 09, 2004 at 14:10 UTC
Modifying the program is not inherently harmful, Not inherently harmful? I'd say a large percentage of bugs in programs comes from the fact someone modified the program. That's my point. If something is not broken, don't fix it. but the fact is that it prevents a lot of subtle bugs that might not come up in normal debugging at all. It was given that the program was working. I assume that the OP doesn't mean "it has bugs" when he writes "working". Adding strictness on a working program is a bit like rebuilding the Egyptian pyramids because originally the construction workers weren't wearing safety harnesses. Abigail	[reply]
Re^2: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected by cfreak (Chaplain) on Jun 09, 2004 at 15:06 UTC
The difference is no one is going to be adding on to the pyramids and even if they did the proper equipment could be used for the additional construction. New functionality may need to be added to the existing program, `strict` can help in that department but you would need it for the entire program. Plus just becase a program works doesn't mean it doesn't have bugs that could be caught by adding `strict` Everyone would be much better off if coders stopped writting code that "works" and instead started writting code that works well, scales, and is easy to maintain. Of course, since we are talking about humans, that's not too likely to happen soon :) Lobster Aliens Are attacking the world!	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jun 09, 2004 at 16:58 UTC
Yeah, the keyword here being additional construction. The OP wasn't talking about extending a program. He was adding strict for the sake of adding strict. New functionality may need to be added to the existing program Yes, but why spend time now for something that may not happen? It's not that if a program remains stable for another year, that you have to hit the keyboard harder if you are going to add strict in a year, when you do modify the program. strict can help in that department but you would need it for the entire program. Sillyness. `use strict` is lexically scoped. Everyone would be much better off if coders stopped writting code that "works" and instead started writting code that works well, scales, and is easy to maintain. Totally beside the point. The program has already been written. Besides, just slapping a 'use strict' on the program isn't magical wand. Writing easy to maintain programs that scale well takes a lot more than slapping 'use strict' on the program. In fact, there isn't much relation between them. Abigail	[reply]
Re^2: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected by vek (Prior) on Jun 09, 2004 at 21:14 UTC
Re^3: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected by belden (Friar) on Jun 10, 2004 at 14:24 UTC