Begin forwarded message:
> From: drieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu Jun 06, 2002 07:38:29 US/Pacific
> To: begin begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: notBob clarifies the Bob was Re: subroutine or &subroutine
>
>
> On Thursday, June 6, 2002, at 06:31 , Camilo Gonzalez wrote:
> [..]
>> Since this is a list for newbies, can you please be a bit more specific
>> why
>> you are opposed to those things you list. I'm quite fond of using the
>> &foo
>> or &foo(args) calling styles. Is this just a personal preference?
>>
> [..]
> Bob Said:
>> Here are my recommendations for new code (others may want to debate
>> these)
>> :
>>
>> 1. Always "use strict;"
>>
>> 2. Don't use prototypes.
>>
>> 3. Don't use the &foo or &foo(args) calling styles.
>>
>> 4. To call a sub with no arguments, use an empty set of
>> parens: foo() (Exception: method calls can leave
>> off the parens, e.g: $sth->execute; since there is
>> no ambiguity with a method call).
>
> notBob says:
>
> 1) the 'use strict' pragma helps pop out things
> like wacko ref cases as well as making sure
> that you do not have any wacko sub situations
> and will WHINE at you at compile time.... This
> while ANNOYING at compile time helps impose good habits,
> probably faster than making you stand at the chaulk board
> writing
>
> I will not write bad code x 1_000_000_000
>
> to impress upon the impressionable that good form is elegant.
>
> 2) the 'prototype' approach gets harry and messy when you
> start certain types of software development - it was an
> interesting idea - but as you will note in the 3rd edition
> of programming perl it is not recommended.
>
> { Nikola probably has sanity issues that he is resolving
> with prototyping - but then again, most of us are all
> sublimating one or more issues in perl... }
>
> May I recommend Miss Happy's House of Dominitrix Delights
> if you have unresolved bondage needs as a simpler and more
> direct solution to prototyping perl functions.
>
> { I think 'use subs qw/..../;' is not as cool as it was either. }
>
> /* do not let me prevent you from learning the hard way. */
>
> 3) the &foo and &foo(@arglist) models are 'old perl' - and it
> was so much nicer once we were allowed to go with
>
> foo();
>
> so that the 'oldGuys' felt more at home that this was
> a 'function' that was called with no args... Nothing like
> that annoying typo HELL of
>
> if ( $wombat && foo(@arglist) )
>
> which you had intended to have been the &foo() bitwise
> added with $wombat - but got the logical anded..... OYE!
> You find that one at Oh-Dark-Squat without a Whole Lot of
> Mountain Dew and.....
>
> { hey crayon heads - did your colour coded perl IDE help in this case? }
>
>
> In short these are recommendations based upon life experience,
> our life, our experience - you are free to go with the flow or
> not - but if you see me 'weaving down the road' while walking,
> just accept the fact that I do that to make it harder on the
> amatuer snipers..... If you see me running, all you need to
> do is be in front of me.....
ciao
drieux
---
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
