Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2008
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 03:16:31PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xs4all.nl> [2008-05-29 13:00]:
> > using a semi-colon
> > $ perl -wle'my@a=map{;"--$_"=>$_}@ARGV;print"(@a)"' foo bar
> > (--foo foo --bar bar)
> >
> > using parens
> > $ perl -wle'my@a=map{("--$_"=>$_)}@ARGV;print"(@a)"' foo bar
> > (--foo foo --bar bar)
> >
> > using a unary +
> > $ perl -wle'my@a=map{+"--$_"=>$_}@ARGV;print"(@a)"' foo bar
> > (--foo foo --bar bar)
> >
> > using catenation
> > $ perl -wle'my@a=map{"--".$_=>$_}@ARGV;print"(@a)"' foo bar
> > (--foo foo --bar bar)
> >
> > I personally think that using parens here to disambuigate is
> > the most verbose option without adding unexplainable line noise
>
> Which in my mind makes it the least desirable, since that makes
> it ???obviously??? superfluous and therefore the most likely to be
> removed by some overeager maintainer. The semicolon, OTOH, is so
> unusual that it is much more obviously intentional, even if the
> maintainer who discovers it doesn???t know what it???s there for. It
> probably won???t prevent them from removing it, but I would expect
> that after the code breaks they will conclude that the semicolon
> was put there purposely to prevent that error. With parens, in
> contrast, it seems more likely to me that the maintainer will
> think the code worked just by accident because the previous
> programmer wrote it in a peculiar style with no particular
> intent.
I guess it's matter of style, but I prefer the parenthesis as well. The
semi-colon is unual enough that it mystefies many people. The overeager
maintainer who removes the parenthesis will be left code that doesn't
compile, let alone pass a test suite. I'm not so worried about that;
it'll be a simple delete 2 chars, compile, undo cycle. Worse would be
a maintainer that wastes half a day what the hell the semi-colon is for.
Abigail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next