3 ms·
And it should(+) always be refactored to match the new assumptions in a meaningful way. I get your point, I just meant that "doesn't work" is quite a stretch f
by Deestan 17y ago
And it should(+) always be refactored to match the new assumptions in a meaningful way.
I get your point, I just meant that "doesn't work" is quite a stretch from "doesn't allow ugly global variable hacks".
(+) http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html#anchor3 http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html#anchor3
- bad_user 17y agoSince when are global variables ugly hacks?
- foldr 17y agoIf there is information that needs to be accessible across several not-otherwise-very-interdependent modules of a program, then you need to have something with essentially all the properties of a global variable. That doesn't' necessarily mean that you need a single identifier with global scope, but it does mean that you need something with essentially the same properties.