Clever code often relies on assumptions. Sooner or later, one will break.
Even if they never break, the burden of veryfying assumptions has been added.
Update: Overloaded ops break your claim of always and ever.
| [reply] |
Clever code often relies on assumptions. Sooner or later, one will break.
I wasn't advocating using the "clever" code. But given that it's oft been cited that "perl is the reference to Perl", justifying not using it on the basis of a well-known reality, not having been explicitly documented is a nonsense.
There are lots of good reasons for not using it, primarily that they have no advantage over the simpler and clearer versions, but the fact that the always-has-been-and-(probably)-always-will-be-and-would-break-half-of-CPAN-if-it-ever-changed behaviour isn't explicitly documented isn't one of them.
Even if they never break, the burden of veryfying assumptions has been added.
You mean like: testing?
Update: Overloaded ops break your claim of always and ever.
Actually it doesn't. The "claim" as you term it, applies to perl, not arbitrary modules.
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.
| [reply] |
always-has-been-and-(probably)-always-will-be-and-would-break-half-of-CPAN-if-it-ever-changed behaviour isn't explicitly documented isn't one of them.
Obviously. That wasn't the point.
You mean like: testing?
Creating a test doesn't help the reader understand there are no hidden motives.
The "claim" as you term it, applies to perl, not arbitrary modules.
I thought we were talking about Perl's relational operators.
| [reply] |