Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2012
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:44 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
> but should it really allow:
>
> printf "%d", my(), my(), my(), my(), my $x=10, my();
>
I'm not sure what argument you're making, but it appears to be an appeal to
aesthetics. If so, the argument equally applies to
printf "%d", do{}, do{}, do{}, do{}, $x=10, do{};
which we're not going to change, so that leaves me answering "yes, that's
not a reason for forbidding my()".
On the other hand, arguments about consistency are not very convincing. my
is very particular (i.e. exceptional) as to what it accepts as arguments.
$ perl -e'my ( $foo{x} )'
Can't declare hash element in "my" at -e line 1, at EOF
Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.
So preventing C<< my () >> can catch errors (as it did in the code
generator that was mentioned).
The question is: Can it also prevent legitimate code? I actually came up
for a use for C<< my () >>: Self documenting lack of arguments.
sub foo {
my () = @_;
...
}
- Eric
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next