>>>>> "Shlomi" == Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org> writes:
Shlomi> Well, I believe I've always avoided using an implicit $_ as preventative Shlomi> measure (out of thinking I know better) and so cannot present such a case Shlomi> first-hand. However, see: Shlomi> http://www.forum2.org/gaal/perl/Pitfall/slide001.html - “A $_ Shlomi> Gotcha”. Ahh, so the break was *someone else's* code, not the coder's fault. At that level, anything can go wrong... we can't code completely defensively presuming everything else is idiotic. So I'm still wondering why you have excessive paranoia about *your* code accidentally breaking $_. How did *you* get burned "accidentally" as you claim? If not, please stop suggesting that other people change their behavior when using $_ *as designed* is a perfectly acceptable practice. It makes Perl seem scarier than it is. (A lot of those PBPs are like that, but I won't open that can of worms here.) print "Just another Perl hacker,"; # the original -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <mer...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
