Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2017
Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> writes:
> I think what this addresses is a developer assuming that undef'ing this
> variable (by applying "undef" to it, undef()'ing it, or local()izing it)
> has an effect. Any such assumption might be worthwhile verifying doesn't
> work by fatalizing. On the other hand, it also means actively breaking
> code that might work just the same. I'm still on the fence, but leaning
> towards leaving it to not have any effect.
Quoth perlvar:
If you are coming here because code of yours is being adversely
affected by someone's use of this variable, you can usually work
around it by doing this:
local ${^ENCODING};
near the beginning of the functions that are getting broken. This
undefines the variable during the scope of execution of the
including function.
The idea is that you can defend your code against ${^ENCODING} being set
from outside it, and I think makes sense to allow this without having a
version guard.
--
- Twitter seems more influential [than blogs] in the 'gets reported in
the mainstream press' sense at least. - Matt McLeod
- That'd be because the content of a tweet is easier to condense down
to a mainstream media article. - Calle Dybedahl
Thread Previous