Re^2: Is modifying the symbol table to redefine subroutines evil?

Seriously, what's wrong with a much easier approach like this?

It could be much easier to read:

if (not $FOO_HAS_BEEN_CALLED) {

... if it were instead:

unless ($FOO_HAS_BEEN_CALLED) {

Otherwise, it seems reasonable.

Comment on Re^2: Is modifying the symbol table to redefine subroutines evil? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Is modifying the symbol table to redefine subroutines evil? by perrin (Chancellor) on Apr 12, 2007 at 18:29 UTC
Now that you mention it, I usually handle this kind of bail-out conditional with a simple test at the top: `return if $foo_has_been_called;` [download] Then you don't have to indent the whole rest of the sub.	[reply] [d/l]