On 7/13/2004 8:34 PM, perl.org wrote:
There is still a question here - is there any convention difference between
local sub names (in the script) and sub names in modules? I guess I can
always name my local subs lsWhatever if there is no established convention.
Naw, method names are dem dar thangs
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:17:06 -0500, Wiggins d'Anconia wrote
>
> Which particular style you happen to choose is less important, than
> being consistent with it all the way through your programming.
Good because according to that perldoc I am following about 10% of convention
(though it is pretty
perl.org wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:57:57 -0500, James Edward Gray II wrote
perldoc perlstyle
Thanks. I had done perldoc perl | find /i "nam" but didn't see anything that
looked relevant. The people that maintain Perl apparently have a very
different mindset than I do...
Which particular styl
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:57:57 -0500, James Edward Gray II wrote
>
> perldoc perlstyle
Thanks. I had done perldoc perl | find /i "nam" but didn't see anything that
looked relevant. The people that maintain Perl apparently have a very
different mindset than I do...
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EM
On Jul 13, 2004, at 6:52 PM, perl.org wrote:
Is there an established, documented best practice for naming
subroutines in
Perl? does it differ whether the subroutine is in a script or a
module (I
would like it to be clear in my scripts whether I am expecting
something local
or packaged). I have
Is there an established, documented best practice for naming subroutines in
Perl? does it differ whether the subroutine is in a script or a module (I
would like it to be clear in my scripts whether I am expecting something local
or packaged). I have seen at least:
some_function()
someFunction()
