Do we really need this sort of stuff at PerlMonks?
Yes. Merlyn makes a valid point: this is an odd thing to want to do (certainly I've never encountered a use for it). It seems to be a means to some end, rather than an end in itself, so it's reasonable to ask what that end is; there's a good chance that other people have already achieved that in some other way, which perhaps would be of more benefit to the original poster.
Actually, it isn't only reasonable of Merlyn to ask this, but it's helpful for him to do so. Nobody else had asked. And if it turns out there is a better approach for this task, the original poster benefits. Showing him a 'better' way of coding a duff approach only re-inforces that approach.
What PerlMonks needs is more people taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture.
Smylers
| [reply] |
Well, you may be right in all 6 points you listed, but I found his reply insightful and valuable. I think we do need valuable nodes at PerlMonks.
While wiping all your object data may be the best choice in this particular case (I assume the OP knows what (s)he is doing), it may not be appropriate and even spell trouble under other circumstances. People new to Perl who are browsing PerlMonks should not get the impression that this is the right way of doing it (tm), so I think this point had to be made.
| [reply] |
At times I wish I could ++ a node more than once.
| [reply] |
At times, I wish I could -- a node more than once, plus bitchslap the author. merlyn's sentiment was:
- well-thought out
- expressed plainly
- discussed the design and not the poster
- with no ad-hominem attacks
Those, imho, are the very heart of constructive dialogue. halley's response, on the other hand, was a knee-jerk reaction to someone he doesn't like very much. Not so good.
- In general, if you think something isn't in Perl, try it out, because it usually is. :-)
- "What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of a wall that people have stopped banging their heads against?"
| [reply] |