Re: Bareword errors?

In article <m21wnnmcs4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

gcr <reviewyourdemo@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Side point - I've been burned a few times by cgi.pm so I gave up on it

If you get "burned" by something that literally *thousands* of other people
are using successfully, giving up and blaming the module is just silly.

Line breaks - cgi.pm was inconsistent. This is a while back, may have
been fixed by now or maybe I didn't get it back then. There were also
big back and forths on the newsgroup by those more knowledgable than I
(that would be everyone) about the pluses and minuses of cgi.pm. I
haven't been burned *yet* by using the regexes and it's been in pretty
constant use for a while. I like to be able to control what is being
decoded for various reasons which I wasn't able to figure out in cgi.pm.
I've also fixed other peoples broken cgi's (again, linebreak issues) by
taking cgi.pm out and using regexes. YMMV.


So? It's still awful code, regardless of how long you've been using it. It
uses global variables, for pity's sake.

I added strict when posting to the NG and defined the variables on the
fly at the head for the example. The main HASH{} could be named WEB{} I
guess but I'm the only maintainer so it hasn't bothered me.

You're claiming that the standard
module is somehow inferior,

Not at all. *I* couldn't make it work, fault probably lies here. The
other code worked and hasn't broken yet. I moved on.

when the author of the code you're using now
doesn't even know how to return a value from a subroutine?


Unclear what you mean - again purely my ignorance. Like I said, this
code has run in various places for a while with no problems (besides
sheer idiocy like my parent posting which wasn't the code but PEBKAC)

Thanks for getting, anyways.
.