Lee Goddard wrote:
> From: Philip Newton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Rubinow, Larry wrote:
> > > Finally, a legitimate case for symbolic references?
> >
> > I doubt it. Having names like this for subroutines sounds
> > strange enough; they're not very descriptive.
>
> Did you really want the full name of my subs? Why? Would it
> help you solve the problem?
If they contained dissimilar names, you'd have to do something like
for (\&this, \&that, \&the_other) { ... }
while with similar names you could use symrefs -- but then that might be
because the subs have poorly chosen names.
> I find that when discussing private issues in public, I get
> the best results if I abstract.
But only if the abstraction is structurally identical to the real code, or
people might point you in directions you don't need to go.
> > And if they are realy intimately connected in a series,
> > consider storing references to the sub in an array or a
> > hash, rather than giving them such funny names.
>
> They were, as it happens, but it was not necessary to post
> that, was it?
Yes, it was. If they're in an array, you don't need to use funky symref.
Erm, come to talk about it, if the sub references are in an array already,
you already have a list. If, for example, @dostuff contains three code refs,
you could just pass @dostuff to MIDI::Simple::synch and it should be fine.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
_______________________________________________
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/listinfo/perl-win32-users
