Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2014
* James E Keenan via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> [2014-10-11 03:50]:
> On Fri Oct 10 00:25:37 2014, shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
> > * https://github.com/shlomif/perl/tree/shlomif-perlipc-changes
>
> While I personally like the revisions you present in your second
> patch, I know that our contributors have a range of opinions such
> changes. So I'm going to request additional eyeballs before applying.
I have some quibbles with all of the individual edits, but there is only
one I really disagree with.
> - #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> + #!/usr/bin/perl
> +
> + use strict;
> + use warnings;
Yes. And I rather like that there was already a shebang with -w so that
we can skip the “it’s distracting to add `use strict; use warnings;` to
every example” convo this time.
> - $| = 1;
> + STDOUT->autoflush(1);
This is always debatable to me in a small program… as it automagically
loads a fairly heavy module under the covers just so one can spell one
single assignment to one of the most commonly seen punctuation variables
with a rather verbose name. For this case I call “they’ll need to know
what $| is in their Perl programming life anyway” and oppose the edit.
> - use File::Spec::Functions;
> + use File::Spec::Functions (qw(catfile));
Yes, good. But why the extra parens?
> - while (++$count) {
> + while (1) {
> + ++$count;
> sleep 2;
> print "$count\n";
> }
Definitely. Though I would propose cutting the line count back down by
doing this instead:
- while (++$count) {
+ while (1) {
sleep 2;
- print "$count\n";
+ print ++$count, "\n";
}
(Just goes to show, you really needn’t obfuscate in order to be concise.
In fact this is both more obvious *and* more concise.)
--
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next