On 24/08/09 15:54 , Fred Moyer wrote: > 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.
Well said, same concern here. -- Philippe M. Chiasson GPG: F9BFE0C2480E7680 1AE53631CB32A107 88C3A5A5 http://gozer.ectoplasm.org/ m/gozer\@(apache|cpan|ectoplasm)\.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
