pjf at perltraining.com.au
Wed Jan 9 22:48:17 CST 2002
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 12:33:11PM +1100, Scott Penrose wrote:
> Personally I can't see a reason to NOT use strict...
> However, in Damians case, especially modules such as "NEXT" (one of my
> favorite examples of why perl is cool, an extension to the language
> written in native perl) you have to not use strict.
*ahem* NEXT.pm uses strict. :)
Of course, Damian removed all the in-line comments explaining how
it all works from the patches I sent him. Hence the code
as you see it today (0.50).
If anyone's really curious as to how NEXT works, I'm sure I've
got the original patches around someplace.
> I have a philosophy that I try and force on our developers where I work,
> which is you can do bad evil things in perl (eg: NEXT) and that is fine,
> but abstract it off into a separate module, both reusable and easy to
> test, code review etc.
I'd say the same should go for nice good things written in Perl as well.
Code reuse is your friend. :)
Paul Fenwick <pjf at perltraining.com.au> | http://perltraining.com.au/
Director of Training | Ph: +61 3 9354 6001
Perl Training Australia | Fax: +61 3 9354 2681
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.pm.org/archives/melbourne-pm/attachments/20020110/c2f3b05d/attachment.bin
More information about the Melbourne-pm