On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Torsten Foertsch<torsten.foert...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Mon 24 Aug 2009, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote: >> > Modified: perl/modperl/trunk/lib/Apache2/Build.pm >> > URL: >> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/perl/modperl/trunk/lib/Apache2/Build.p >> >m?rev=807116&r1=807115&r2=807116&view=diff >> > =================================================================== >> >=========== --- perl/modperl/trunk/lib/Apache2/Build.pm (original) >> > +++ perl/modperl/trunk/lib/Apache2/Build.pm Mon Aug 24 08:29:43 >> > 2009 @@ -2068,6 +2068,7 @@ >> > } >> > >> > sub inc { >> > + local $_; >> > my @includes = map { "-I$_" } @{ shift->includes }; >> > "@includes"; >> > } >> >> With the rest of the changes in this patch, is this particular change >> still necessary? > > Not really, but it's a safety measure. The "for ()" idiom is used in > many places. And I know these pieces of code that had bitten me now are > years old. Don't know why it happened now. So, I'd like to have it > there.
What about replacing the for () instances with 'for my'? 'local $_' may affect other parts of the code that haven't been looked at - that's my concern with that approach. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@perl.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@perl.apache.org
