-- Vladi Belperchinov-Shabanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:34:40 -0000
"Pense, Joachim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bart Lateur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
(Mittwoch, 20. November 2002 11:43)
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 04:10:02 -0600, Steven Lembark wrote:
>
>> sub commify
>> {
>> my ( $max, $sep, $end ) = ( shift, shift, shift );
> ...
>> }
>
> Wow! Hold it! Am I the only one who finds this absurd? More than one
> shift on the same array in one single expressing, sounds like bad style
> to me. Comments?
In one of my programs, this would be
sub commify {
my $max = shift;
my $sep = shift;
my $end = shift;
...
}
I use this form too. it is more explicit and gives nice way to comment:
sub commify {
my $max = shift; # this is arg 1 blah
my $sep = shift; # arg two blah
my $end = shift; # arg III, actually takes hash reference to useless
data :)
...
}
which is better than
my ( $max, # ala
$sep, # bala
$end ) # nica
= @_;
imo.
it is matter of taste of cource...
my ( ... ) = @_;
has the only advantage to be ~20% faster for large number of function
call iterations.
finally:
sub nonsensessez
{
my $s = $_[0];
my $a = $_[1];
my $k = $_[2];
my $j = $_[3];
my $l = $_[4];
1;
}
combines the best from both forms above ( i.e. cna be commented, clean and
approx. as fast as `my ( ... ) = @_' thing.
Only to the extent that you are not processing the remainder
of @_ after taking the fixed parameters -- that or you have
to remember to use the proper offset in a foreach or array
slice to access the argument array in for/map/grep.
--
Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer
Workhorse Computing Chicago, IL 60647
+1 800 762 1582
