Paul Fenwick pjf at
Wed Jan 9 22:48:17 CST 2002

G'day Scott/Mongers,

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* 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> |
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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the Melbourne-pm mailing list