Is this really a problem if the script has
no multi-valued params, and never will?
I think it is a problem, for two reasons:
- You can never be sure that the script will never
have multi-valued parameters. Who knows what features might
be added in the future - and it might not be you that adds
them.
- By posting the code here you've made it an example that
people will copy - and people who might not understand
the specific circumstances that make your code work
correctly. At the very least, you should have a comment
that says something like "this code only works correctly
because I have no multi-values CGI parameters".
I understand what you're saying about mixing
CGI.pm interfaces. But i have tried it, and it
works!
OK. I'll take your word for that. But does it give you
any advantages over using one or the other exclusively?
And once more, consider that your code will now be read
and copied by people who don't understand it as well as you
do. Would using one interface make it easier for them to
understand? I think so.
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>
"Perl makes the fun jobs fun
and the boring jobs bearable" - me
| [reply] |
Excellent points davorg. I wasn't doing the CGI thing for
any reason so that's gone, and wasn't thinking out
the full ramifications of posting code here, so have
rewritten the hash generator with a simple
&import_names('IN') while calling params with $IN::param in
accord with the most concise advice i could
find.
| [reply] |