Re^4: The default hash - accident, coincidence or conspiracy?

Sure, and some module authors have had the bright idea of using $_. If you use a module that uses $_ (or any other global) and they haven't properly localized, then maybe you should rethink using that module. For better or worse, that's the way it is in the perl world. It's true for $_, and it's just as true for %_.

You know, just because a module is out there doesn't mean people should use it. Would you use a module that didn't use strict and made all its variables global in %main:: ? I sure wouldn't.

Comment on Re^4: The default hash - accident, coincidence or conspiracy? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: The default hash - accident, coincidence or conspiracy? by tlm (Prior) on Jul 02, 2005 at 23:53 UTC
The `$_` example is misleading, because Perl provides a lot of extra built-in help (like implicit localization) that it doesn't provide for other such variables. (I can easily imagine perfectly well-behaved modules that make heavy use of `$_` without ever using a single explicit localization of `$_`.) Without this extra help I think the use of `$_`, at least in modules, would become much less attractive. An even with all the extra help, the use of `$_` is still fraught with trouble. the lowliest monk	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: The default hash - accident, coincidence or conspiracy?
by tlm (Prior) on Jul 02, 2005 at 23:53 UTC

The $_ example is misleading, because Perl provides a lot of extra built-in help (like implicit localization) that it doesn't provide for other such variables. (I can easily imagine perfectly well-behaved modules that make heavy use of $_ without ever using a single explicit localization of $_.) Without this extra help I think the use of $_, at least in modules, would become much less attractive. An even with all the extra help, the use of $_ is still fraught with trouble.

the lowliest monk

[reply]