Re^3: Rewrite in a more compact way

Well, it's in the eye of the beholder, (and I don't mean 'beauty' :), but that's just verbosity for it's own sake (IMO).

The most that is required here (and only then if you insist on sticking with the limitations of 1970s VTs), is:

my $str = sprintf(
  'CALL DB_PROC_FOO(%s)',
  join ',', ( '?' ) x $n
);
[download]

I'd love to see the PBP justifiction for this absurd practice of always replacing simple string constants with verbose and confusing q{} constructs. (Damn! But has that book got a lot to answer for!).

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Comment on Re^3: Rewrite in a more compact way Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Rewrite in a more compact way by Narveson (Chaplain) on Nov 28, 2008 at 04:47 UTC
I'd love to see the PBP justifiction for this absurd practice of always replacing simple string constants with verbose and confusing q{} constructs. PBP doesn't actually recommend always replacing `'foo'` with `q{foo}`. It does prefer `q{O'Reilly}` over `'O\'Reilly'`, `q{'}` over `'\''`, `q{}` over `''`, and most controversially `q{,}` over `','`.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: Rewrite in a more compact way by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 28, 2008 at 12:25 UTC
Well, another usually knowledgeable and accurate monk gave the attribution elsewhere in the thread and I took it as read. I considered apologising, but then got to thinking whether it actually makes any difference that PBP doesn't actually recommend the deprecation of all simple quoted strings if people attribute the practice to it? Regardless of whether it is those that use and promote the practice using PBP as their justifiction; or those that would decry it. If the wider audience's general interpretation is that the practice stems from that source, then it is hard not to lay both the plaudits and blame at it's cover. Certainly, my impression is that if you go back 6+ years to when I first came here, you never saw the practice. And if you could survey the posts here for those that use it, you'd find that it crept in slowly, but more and more frequently, post the release of PBP. There is a rich history of legislation being misinterpreted--see "Rights under Common Law"; "citizen's arrest" and a bunch of other urban myths--and a well-worn axiom in the legal world that "if it can be misinterpreted, it will be". That's why most legislation takes so long to draft and is subject to numerous levels of review, checks and balances. It's also why the imposition of legislation should not be rushed. Take the rafts of laws rushed onto the statute books in western countries immediately post-9/11. Or those (of which I am more familiar) that were hastily pushed through in the UK after significant events: Hungerford 1987; The Dangerous Dogs Act, 1991 etc. PBP's guidelines may not carry the legal impetuous of national legislation, but the formal codification of what amounts to personal preference, by an influential proponent (even with consultation), into bound-copy, frequently exhibits similar affects. Some will misinterpret the codification; others will raise it's purpose and meaning to that of imperative statute. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]