Re: [cgiapp] ($self vs $c) was: Re: New Plugin: RunmodeDeclare
Mark Stosberg wrote: Although I still prefer $c in my own code, I thought they made good points, so I switched back from $c to $self in the docs and code of the latest CGI::App dev release. But I'm interested in more opinions on the issue. Richard, do you particularlly prefer $c, or were you mostly following along the docs that were updated to switch from $self to $c ? Actually prefer $c these days as a) it's shorter and therefore quicker and less easy to mis-spell (I seem to type slef more often than self), but more importantly, having done a lot of work with Catalyst recently, that's the Cat standard also, so it's familiar to me. -- Richard Jones # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] ($self vs $c) was: Re: New Plugin: RunmodeDeclare
Richard Jones wrote: Actually prefer $c these days as a) it's shorter and therefore quicker and less easy to mis-spell (I seem to type slef more often than self), but more importantly, having done a lot of work with Catalyst recently, that's the Cat standard also, so it's familiar to me. This actually came up in our discussions and we thought it would cause more confusion since in Catalyst the $c is not $self. It's a different object entirely. So calling it $c in C::A land might confuse the catalyst folks since it's really $self just shorter. Also, for folks playing with Titanium (which btw, does not have a friendly abbreviation :) do you plan on still using $c? Or will you go with $t? -- Michael Peters Plus Three, LP # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] ($self vs $c) was: Re: New Plugin: RunmodeDeclare
Michael Peters wrote: Richard Jones wrote: Actually prefer $c these days as a) it's shorter and therefore quicker and less easy to mis-spell (I seem to type slef more often than self), but more importantly, having done a lot of work with Catalyst recently, that's the Cat standard also, so it's familiar to me. This actually came up in our discussions and we thought it would cause more confusion since in Catalyst the $c is not $self. It's a different object entirely. So calling it $c in C::A land might confuse the catalyst folks since it's really $self just shorter. Also, for folks playing with Titanium (which btw, does not have a friendly abbreviation :) do you plan on still using $c? Or will you go with $t? Yes it's true it could be confusing as we won't need to *manually* shift the class object into a variable any more, so the self-documenting nature of this step is effectively lost to the unfamiliar observer. For me though, I still think I prefer the shorter form as it's used in all rms and sometimes multiple times within an rm. And providing it doesn't clash with any other abbreviated variable name and its use is consistent throughout I think it should be OK. Personally I'd be happy to use $t for the Titanium object since the letter 't' is even closer to the '$' key than is the letter 'c' ;) -- Richard Jones # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] ($self vs $c) was: Re: New Plugin: RunmodeDeclare
One more vote for $self. My reasoning - I've inherited a few projects that use something other than $self, and each had decided it was smarter than sticking to the standard $self. Try to integrate those, and not constantly forget on which module you're currently working! And now, a bunch of that project is new, converted, or imported code using $self, an awful lot is still using $this (they were php immigrants), and there's a few random places that try to type less and use something like $c or $s. If one wants to adopt a standard of using $c in place of $self across their own project, I have no problem with that - it's one of the great things about perl, more than one way to do it and all that. But for stuff meant for the general population of CPAN, 3 extra characters won't kill anyone. At the very least, for the docs. As for $t, maybe it's just me, but that's my first choice for any short-lived temp variables, so I've stuck to $tmpl for the template object. Reads better to me, and hopefully to the next maintainer. YMMV -- Josh I. On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Richard Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Michael Peters wrote: Richard Jones wrote: Actually prefer $c these days as a) it's shorter and therefore quicker and less easy to mis-spell (I seem to type slef more often than self), but more importantly, having done a lot of work with Catalyst recently, that's the Cat standard also, so it's familiar to me. This actually came up in our discussions and we thought it would cause more confusion since in Catalyst the $c is not $self. It's a different object entirely. So calling it $c in C::A land might confuse the catalyst folks since it's really $self just shorter. Also, for folks playing with Titanium (which btw, does not have a friendly abbreviation :) do you plan on still using $c? Or will you go with $t? Yes it's true it could be confusing as we won't need to *manually* shift the class object into a variable any more, so the self-documenting nature of this step is effectively lost to the unfamiliar observer. For me though, I still think I prefer the shorter form as it's used in all rms and sometimes multiple times within an rm. And providing it doesn't clash with any other abbreviated variable name and its use is consistent throughout I think it should be OK. Personally I'd be happy to use $t for the Titanium object since the letter 't' is even closer to the '$' key than is the letter 'c' ;) -- Richard Jones # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## #### # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
[cgiapp] ($self vs $c) was: Re: New Plugin: RunmodeDeclare
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:18:02 +0100 Richard Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Stosberg wrote: As Rhesa proposed, he has followed through and released a plugin to add the Devel::Declare / Method::Signatures magic to CGI::Application: http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?CGI::Application::Plugin::RunmodeDeclare Looks like an interesting alternative to CAP::AutoRunmode. One minor irritant is having to put 'runmode foo ($c:)' everywhere (only if using $c instead of $self of course). Might be useful to be able to declare use CGI::Application::Plugin::RunmodeDeclare(invocant = '$c'), or just use CAP::RunmodeDeclare qw($c). I agree with this sentiment. This brings back to life the discussion we were having on IRC the other day about $self vs $c. I like $c because it's shorter and since it's used all over the code base, it's clear enough what it is. And, the first element to 'shift' off of @_ in a method must be the invocant. Michael Peters and Richardo argued in favor of $self citing the Principle of Least Surprise and the expectation that this non-standard change would generate more harm in confusion than benefits in keystrokes. Although I still prefer $c in my own code, I thought they made good points, so I switched back from $c to $self in the docs and code of the latest CGI::App dev release. But I'm interested in more opinions on the issue. Richard, do you particularlly prefer $c, or were you mostly following along the docs that were updated to switch from $self to $c ? Mark -- http://mark.stosberg.com/blog # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] ($self vs $c) was: Re: New Plugin: RunmodeDeclare
Mark Stosberg writes: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:18:02 +0100 Richard Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Stosberg wrote: As Rhesa proposed, he has followed through and released a plugin to add the Devel::Declare / Method::Signatures magic to CGI::Application: http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?CGI::Application::Plugin::RunmodeDeclare Looks like an interesting alternative to CAP::AutoRunmode. One minor irritant is having to put 'runmode foo ($c:)' everywhere (only if using $c instead of $self of course). Might be useful to be able to declare use CGI::Application::Plugin::RunmodeDeclare(invocant = '$c'), or just use CAP::RunmodeDeclare qw($c). I agree with this sentiment. This brings back to life the discussion we were having on IRC the other day about $self vs $c. I like $c because it's shorter and since it's used all over the code base, it's clear enough what it is. And, the first element to 'shift' off of @_ in a method must be the invocant. Michael Peters and Richardo argued in favor of $self citing the Principle of Least Surprise and the expectation that this non-standard change would generate more harm in confusion than benefits in keystrokes. Although I still prefer $c in my own code, I thought they made good points, so I switched back from $c to $self in the docs and code of the latest CGI::App dev release. But I'm interested in more opinions on the issue. Richard, do you particularlly prefer $c, or were you mostly following along the docs that were updated to switch from $self to $c ? I'll toss in one vote for $self being much less Surprising, both to me and to folks with whom I'm sharing code. g. # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] ($self vs $c) was: Re: New Plugin: RunmodeDeclare
Hi Folks I'll toss in one vote for $self being much less Surprising, both to me and to folks with whom I'm sharing code. Yep. $self for me. -- Ron Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://savage.net.au/index.html # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
