Home > Archive > PERL Beginners > July 2005 > Re: convert array pair to hash
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: convert array pair to hash
|
|
| Scott R. Godin 2005-07-24, 8:29 pm |
| Robert Citek wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2005, at 5:19 PM, Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:
>
>
>
> Sweeeeet! Thanks a bunch.
>
> Do you have a good reference which explains this? I've looked in both
> the Camel and Llama books, but didn't see the @$ construct anywhere.
>
basically it's shorthand for the more obvious and well documented
@{$reference} notation.
great detail on this can be found in the perldocs: perlreftut perlref
perldsc and perllol
Personally I feel the shorthand way makes it slightly more difficult WRT
maintenance. Fine for one-offs but for long term multiline code, the
long form would likely be preferable as it makes it easier to see just
exactly what's going on there.
| |
| Wiggins d'Anconia 2005-07-24, 8:29 pm |
| Scott R. Godin wrote:
> Robert Citek wrote:
>
>
> basically it's shorthand for the more obvious and well documented
> @{$reference} notation.
>
> great detail on this can be found in the perldocs: perlreftut perlref
> perldsc and perllol
>
> Personally I feel the shorthand way makes it slightly more difficult WRT
> maintenance. Fine for one-offs but for long term multiline code, the
> long form would likely be preferable as it makes it easier to see just
> exactly what's going on there.
>
I recognize that you said "Personally I feel..." so there is certainly
nothing wrong. I will counter that the additional {} just add clutter
where it isn't needed. Another example is parentheses around function
arguments that don't require them. I am not a key stroke counter, but
adding the grouping where it isn't necessary *can* (not "does" for
everyone) make it much more difficult to read because you have to
constantly see where you are matched to.
Just my $.02 on style...
http://danconia.org
| |
| Scott R. Godin 2005-07-24, 8:29 pm |
| Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:
> Scott R. Godin wrote:
[color=darkred]
[snip][color=darkred]
>
> I recognize that you said "Personally I feel..." so there is certainly
> nothing wrong. I will counter that the additional {} just add clutter
> where it isn't needed. Another example is parentheses around function
> arguments that don't require them. I am not a key stroke counter, but
> adding the grouping where it isn't necessary *can* (not "does" for
> everyone) make it much more difficult to read because you have to
> constantly see where you are matched to.
OTOH, it makes it very clear to me that I'm dereferencing a reference to
something, and that it isn't a typo introducing (some|more) line-noise :-)
|
|
|
|
|