On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 02:25:01PM -0400, Cohan, Drew wrote:
> I wasn't sure if LWP::Simple did any caching since there wasn't any mention
> of it in perldoc LWP::Simple. In general, can I assume that an omission of
> a feature related to a function means that it doesn't exist?
I would, yes. The opposite, assuming a whole host of features exist
regardless of any mention of them, is madness. If a feature exists, but is
not mentioned in the documentation, then it's (be definition) an
undocumented feature, and you can't rely on it. If the feature has an
impact on the user (such as this caching does) then the lack of
documentation on it is a bug, and needs to be fixed.
> eg I think it's reasonable to assume that there might have been some
> built-in caching provided with LWP::Simple::get() even if there was no
> mention of it.
I don't think that's reasonable to assume. Caching can seriously screw up
someone trying to use LWP::Simple::get(), and the lack of documentation
(were this feature to exist) would be a relatively serious bug.
In short, you can't expect a document to mention all of the features a given
function does not have.
Michael
--
Administrator www.shoebox.net
Programmer, System Administrator www.gallanttech.com
--
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
