Which one is good practice, a lexical filehandle or a typeglob?

The earliest edition of the Llama Book is from 1993, before lexical filehandles were part of the Perl language. Lexical filehandles are a better practice for a variety of reasons. The most important disadvantages of typeglobs are

  1. they are always global in scope, which can lead to insidious bugs like this one:

    sub doSomething {
      my ($input) = @_;
      # let's compare $input to something we read from another file
      open(F, "<", $anotherFile);
      @F = <F>; 
      close F;
      do_some_comparison($input, @F);
    }
    
    open(F, "<", $myfile);
    while (<F>) {
        doSomething($_);   # do'h -- just closed the F filehandle
    }
    close F;
    
  2. they are harder to pass to a subroutine than a lexical filehandle

    package package1;
    sub log_time { # print timestamp to filehandle
        my ($fh) = @_;
        print $fh scalar localtime, "\n";
    }
    
    package package2;
    open GLOB, '>', 'log1';
    open $lexical, '>', 'log2';
    
    package1::log_time($lexical);         # works as expected
    package1::log_time(GLOB);             # doesn't work
    package1::log_time('GLOB');           # doesn't work
    package1::log_time(*GLOB);            # works
    package1::log_time(package2::GLOB);   # works
    package1::log_time('package2::GLOB'); # works
    

See also: Why is three-argument open calls with autovivified filehandles a Perl best practice?

Leave a Comment