Ovid wrote:
> --- Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well, if you want to use it in your own code and your work's code,
>> that's fine (because I'm sure you find typing CONTROL-SHIFT-EL so
>> much
>> easier than "sub {}" :) but if it shows up in your CPAN modules, you
>> might get a few complaints since this sugar, while a really nifty
>> hack,
>> adds nothing complex but does screw up older editors and will confuse
>> the heck out of a lot of maintenance programmers.
>
> You know, I was privately called on this and I was wrong. Eric, I'm
> sorry and I shouldn't have said this. At this point on the CPAN, it
> really doesn't matter what goes out there. I really *do* like this
> hack and who am I to say what namespace it should be in?
>
> So my apologies for taking such a negative view. I'm sorry if I gave
> offense.
For what it's worth, I don't think you were necessarily wrong or
excessively negative, you were offering your opinion.
It's definately a neat and clever hack, but I don't think I'd consider
using it in "production" code; adding a dependency on this module (and
the overhead of loading + parsing that module) for a relatively small
feature seems unreasonable to me.
The biggest reason of course is the surprise for a maintainance
programmer visiting that code later - if it's the first time they've
come across this module then causing them to scratch their heads whilst
thinking "what on earth is *that*, and where's it coming from" doesn't
strike me as a good idea. (Which is the same reason I'll generally not
import any function, but prefer to call it explicitly like Foo::bar()
so that it's immediately obvious where to look to find it).
My own feeling is that the Acme namespace would have been appropriate as
this module does strike me as "neat and fun, but not something I'd use
in production code".
But, as you said, "who am I to say what namespace it should be in?" :)
Cheers
Dave P
--
David Precious
http://blog.preshweb.co.uk/ :: http://www.preshweb.co.uk/
