Re^2: How to write better code?

I agree with other comments regarding the advisability of use CGI; if parsing CGI. I also agree with your advice to the OP about meaningful variable names. However, while the code does what it is meant to do, I think it might be more readable if the foreach loop and the intermediate variables are dispensed with

my $cgi_query_string = "name=alex&sex=m";
my %query =
   map {split m{=}}
   split m{&}, $cgi_query_string;
[download]

I realise this might be a step too far for some but I find it easier to see the wood for fewer trees. Others may (and probably will) disagree.

Cheers,

JohnGG

Comment on Re^2: How to write better code? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: How to write better code? by jbert (Priest) on Dec 04, 2006 at 17:18 UTC
It's an interesting point. I almost put in a paragraph on this (saying that some people would suggest dropping the naming variables). I tend to view naming vars almost a substitute for comments. They can be a way of better documenting your intent. I mused about that a bit here. That said, there's also a lot to be said for brevity, and I like your code too :-). If I'm honest, I suspect I'd have dispensed with the `@components` intermediate array, but written out the foreach. I think this is because I rarely think of assigning arrays to lists (and avoiding using a side-effect like `$query{$x} = $y` in a map clause is one of my reasons for using an explicit foreach). Maybe I should do that more often. One hint is that I had a little trouble coming up with a good name for the intermediate array - always a good sign that it probably isn't necesary/desirable.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: How to write better code? by imp (Priest) on Dec 04, 2006 at 17:20 UTC
Your implementation using map instead of foreach is slightly more readable, but will be more cumbersome to maintain and debug if additional parsing is required. It is likely a short-term win that will result in a comment block that is larger than the code after a few upgrades are made. Another weakness of using map for this is that CGI allows a parameter to have multiple values, but the code you provided will only use the last value.	[reply]
Re^4: How to write better code? by johngg (Canon) on Dec 04, 2006 at 20:21 UTC
If the task becomes more complex then I would almost certainly rewrite the code with more explicit control structures and descriptive variable names rather than jump through hoops making the `map` fit. I am only throwing away one line, when all's said and done. I agree with your comment about CGI and said as much at the top of my post, which was more a comment on the code snippet itself and it's legibility rather than it's suitability for parsing CGI. Cheers, JohnGG	[reply] [d/l]