tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (06/27/90)
In article <1990Jun27.101219.11357@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Andrew.Vignaux@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andrew Vignaux) writes: >I've always been a little wary about using the "eval-the-loop" trick >because it will probably mean that the whole perl compiler/interpreter >will get sucked into my executable when (not if :-) a "perl to C >translator" comes along. [Note: ispell thinks that "eval" is "evil" >-- so it's not just my opinion :-] It also interferes with the debugger, which steps over the entire eval as one statement no matter how much code you have in there. For this reason I look at "eval <<'EOF'" as a post hoc optimization tool that should be saved for situations where you REALLY need it (in a script you already know works properly). -- 'We have luck only with women -- not spacecraft!' \\ Tom Neff -- R. Kremnev, builder of failed Soviet FOBOS probes // tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
dgg@ksr.com (David Grubbs) (07/07/90)
In article <1990Jun27.101219.11357@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Andrew.Vignaux@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andrew Vignaux) writes: >I've always been a little wary about using the "eval-the-loop" trick >because it will probably mean that the whole perl compiler/interpreter >will get sucked into my executable when (not if :-) a "perl to C >translator" comes along. [Note: ispell thinks that "eval" is "evil" >-- so it's not just my opinion :-] I can't resist: No, ispell does not think "eval" is "evil"; it thinks the only alternative to "eval" is "evil". -- David G. Grubbs Kendall Square Research Corp. {harvard,uunet}!ksr!dgg dgg@ksr.com