Hello,
==> John,
TIMTOWTDI =>"There Is More Than One Way To Do It" , I know that! I was
stating/showing option(s). Since, the programmer will take resposiblity for
it own coding styles!
===> Fish,
>> «my ($thing1) = @_;» is OK. «my $thing1 = @_;» is not OK, as it will >>
take scalar(@_); which is the number of elements in it. «my $thing1 >> =
shift(@_);» (or «my $thing1 = shift;» for short) does something a >> bit
different and changes @_.
Please, check what I wrote, in this example given by Mike, I don't
see how << my $thing1= shift @_; >> would possible change things here.
>> for clarity use: for (@{$thing1}){...}
It's certainly clearer than @$thing1, yes equivalent!
>> You shouldn't call a scalar "$array" because it's confusing. It could >>
be "$array_ref". And defining a @array and taking a reference to it >> is a
valid strategy.
I never said "defining a @array and taking a reference to it" is NOT a
valid strategy.
>> The first two links are to pirated copies of O'Reilly books.
What is your point?
Regards
