Since we're on the topic of scrutinizing CPAN distributions I would like to
contribute something that I do not like in some of the distributions that I
have come across. I don't know if it has been brought up on this thread yet
but here it goes:
1) I do not like in-module POD as it is hard to tell the difference
between code and pod when you are scrolling throught the module. I
personally think POD should go at the end and comments should be added
in-module and definetly before sub routines.
2) I found that commenting blocks of code with what it does in a
general sense is good when users want to know what something does, namely a
subrountine. I think it is beneficial to have "black box" commenting for
your subroutines and then commenting in line to further describe the code
that you wrote.
If you would like clerification on these two comments I can give
some samples.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Scrutinizing CPAN distributions (was Testing for
> valid path names...)
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 11:25:14PM +1000, Andrew Savige wrote:
>
> > Four completely normal peeps there. ;-) Judging by the
> popularity of
> > cricket and golf statistics, I think there are a lot of lurkers too.
>
> So in a few years time we'll have people quoting Wisden's
> CPAN almanac?
>
> Yes, bioperl now including the entire human genome as a
> prereq has added
> a new sharp upwards spike to CPAN's mean prereq size/module
> size ratio.
> We've not seen anything like this since Meta added a
> dependency on the
> entire Linux 2.7.15 source tree back on April 2nd 2005
>
> :-)
>
> Nicholas Clark
>
