On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:53:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 4/15/20 11:01 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> It would be an unpleasant surprise to cause a perlcritic buildfarm failure > >> by > >> moving a function, verbatim, from a non-strategic file to a strategic file. > >> Having two Perl style regimes in one tree is itself a liability. > > > Honestly, I think you're reaching here. > > I think that argument is wrong, actually. Moving a function from a single > use-case into a library (with, clearly, the intention for it to have more > use-cases) is precisely the time when any weaknesses in its original > implementation might be exposed. So extra scrutiny seems well warranted.
Moving a function to a library does call for various scrutiny. I don't think it calls for replacing "no warnings;" with "no warnings; ## no critic", but that observation is subordinate to your other point: > Whether the "extra scrutiny" involved in perlcritic's higher levels > is actually worth anything is a different debate, though, and so far > it's not looking like it's worth much :-( Yeah, this is the central point. Many proposed style conformance changes are (a) double-entry bookkeeping to emphasize the author's sincerity and (b) regex performance optimization. Those are not better for libraries than for non-libraries, and I think they decrease code quality. Even if such policies were better for libraries, the proposed patch applies them to .pm files with narrow audiences. If DBD::Pg were in this tree, that would be a different conversation.
