* On Thu, Feb 19 2009, Ovid wrote:
> Java programmers learned long ago not to let people touch their
> privates, Perl programmers should learn the same thing.
This is one of Java's worst design decisions.
A while back, I needed to customize the way URLConnection worked. The
parts I needed to tou
That is primarily due to their special ability to slay powerful beasties. :}
Roger
-Original Message-
From: Aristotle Pagaltzis [mailto:pagalt...@gmx.de]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:13 AM
To: module-authors@perl.org
Subject: Re: ARGH! (was FW: Perl Critic and (honest) hash refer
* David Cantrell [2009-02-19 16:45]:
> An awful lot of PBP is Just Plain Wrong if you treat it as
> hard-and- fast rules that should be obeyed all the time.
Case in point, the chapter on references is both extremely anemic
and utterly wrong. (Sorry Damian.)
> Thankfully, the book makes it clear
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:04:35AM +0100, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> IMHO, the unconditional "sponsoring" of Readonly by PBP is just plain wrong.
An awful lot of PBP is Just Plain Wrong if you treat it as hard-and-
fast rules that should be obeyed all the time. Thankfully, the book
makes it clear tha
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 08:25:39PM -0600, Roger Hall wrote:
> 1. I should have perl set to a minimum version, shouldn't I? What's the best
> way to do that? (Makefile?)
Yes, see http://wiki.cpantesters.org/wiki/CPANAuthorNotes
--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire
Irregular Englis
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:58:46PM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> Mostly agreed. Objects should be about responsibilities (behavior) and not
> so much about state (data). That being said, hashes are notorious for
> $gimme->{feild} (note the misspelling)
Tie::Hash::Vivify is useful for detecting this:
- Original Message
> From: Aldo Calpini
>
> Ovid wrote:
> > Readonly constants are just easier to use and have fewer "gotchas".
>
> they have indeed, when you need to access the constants from outside of the
> module they are declared in (which is a pretty common case).
It also used t
Ovid wrote:
Readonly constants are just easier to use and have fewer "gotchas".
they have indeed, when you need to access the constants from outside of
the module they are declared in (which is a pretty common case).
cfr. Foo::Bar::CONSTANT_FIELD vs. $Foo::Bar::CONSTANT_FEILD. the latter
fo
That is not a valid approach. It may shut up P:::C but there are features like
"our" in later versions which one can in best practices use. Do determine your
minimum level and put that in. If P::C complains b/c you put use 5.8 in then it
is borked
--Original Message--
From: Elliot Shank
