Re: FAQ 4.67 Why does passing a subroutine an undefined element in a hash create it?
- From: James Taylor <spam-block-@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:02:41 +0100
In article <1122489468.920709.91510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul Lalli <mritty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> PerlFAQ Server wrote:
> >
> > This has been fixed as of Perl5.004.
>
> Er, if this was fixed a good 5 versions ago, is this FAQ
> really still relevant? Are there really that many people
> still using anything less than 5.004? (And if there are,
> and they have a problem about things not working,
> shouldn't the answer be "Upgrade your Perl"?)
Upgrading their Perl version may not be an option. It
certainly wouldn't be a practical option for me. Thankfully,
the RISC OS port by Nicholas Clark, is up to 5.005_03 but
there are plenty of newer Perl features that I'm stuck not
being able to use. Being unsympathetically told to upgrade
wouldn't be helpful.
I think this FAQ entry should stand as it helps anyone stuck
with an earlier version to discover the potential problem,
helps us all be more mindful of autovivification traps, and
gives people who *can* upgrade a good reason to do so.
--
James Taylor, London, UK PGP key: 3FBE1BF9
To protect against spam, the address in the "From:" header is not valid.
In any case, you should reply to the group so that everyone can benefit.
If you must send me a private email, use james at oakseed demon co uk.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: integer fail ...
- Next by Date: Re: Active State Perl
- Previous by thread: Re: FAQ 4.67 Why does passing a subroutine an undefined element in a hash create it?
- Next by thread: Not able to install 'Msql-Mysql-modules'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
