On Apr 19, 2004, at 9:06 AM, Michael C. Davis wrote: [..]
[..]I realize it's hard to read without formatting, so here's a copy of the same document, with formatting for readability:
http://www.knology.net/~mcdavis941/codingstandards.html
Thanks very much in advance for any feedback.
Props for the write up!
You have clearly done your homework, and a reasonable arrangement of the basic 'talking points' about a coding standard.
The problem then becomes, and I can not tell from your email - if you are in the position to be setting 'corporate policy' - Which is the Real Issue here.
My own personal standard is that I follow, religiously, all of the rules in the perl style guidelines as best as I can. My corporate policy position is that I defer to the 'chief perl perkin in residence' and leave it in their custody that they have agreed on such conventions. At that level it is more important to me that they agree on what their API signatures will be, how the overall design of their coding solution is, and that they can deliver on time.
To be honest, I have delivered product where the naming convention also included 'inside jokes' that the code monkies thought were funny, did not distract from the overall project, and kept the code monkies coding happily.
The ultimate concern is when the code is 'in maintenance' and someone else has to come along and maintain it. If the 'style guide' simplifies that process - it is a bonus.
But you will probably find that spending time on creating the appropriate code coverage in the t/ and making sure that the POD is useful are the places where your time is best spent.
ciao drieux
---
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
