# from Jonathan Rockway
# on Thursday 19 February 2009 11:20:
* On Thu, Feb 19 2009, Ovid wrote:
The module in question should provide a sub or method to provide
access to this data.
This is a good point.
Java programmers learned long ago not to let people touch their
privates, Perl
On Feb 21, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Is there a critic metric for that?
There are several designed to protect internals. Here are the ones
among the Perl::Critic core policies:
Subroutines::ProtectPrivateSubs
ValuesAndExpressions::ProhibitLongChainsOfMethodCalls
* Jonathan Rockway j...@jrock.us [2009-02-19 20:20]:
In general, whenever Java does something, you actually want the
opposite.
The Perl way is no better.
What you really want is to make sure that people can get at
innards if they are deliberately trying to, but will stay off
each others’ toes
* On Fri, Feb 20 2009, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
A great bonus is that while messing around in an object’s internals
outside your own package is easy to do, there’s some pretty repulsive
syntactic salt associated with it – as it should be.
A great bonus? Easy things should be easy.
You
* Jonathan Rockway j...@jrock.us [2009-02-20 21:15]:
A great bonus? Easy things should be easy.
Typing out a fully qualified package name is difficult? Huh.
You shouldn't need syntactic salt to prevent yourself from
writing bad code. You should avoid writing bad code because
it's bad.
Have
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
- Original Message
From: Aldo Calpini d...@perl.it
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
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 that
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
* 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
: Re: ARGH! (was FW: Perl Critic and (honest) hash references)
What was the solution?
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Roger Hall raha...@ualr.edu wrote:
RTFM is always pretty good advice, eh? :}
-Original Message-
From: Roger Hall [mailto:raha...@ualr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18
, column Y.
Accessing an objects data directly breaks encapsulation and should be
avoided.
... is prominently displayed in the module.
Thanks!
Roger
-Original Message-
From: Bill Ward [mailto:b...@wards.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:11 AM
To: raha...@ualr.edu
Subject: Re
: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:11 AM
To: raha...@ualr.edu
Subject: Re: ARGH! (was FW: Perl Critic and (honest) hash references)
What was the solution?
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Roger Hall raha...@ualr.edu wrote:
RTFM is always pretty good advice, eh? :}
-Original Message-
From: Roger
of memory!
It is from: ADAMK/PPI-1.203.tar.gz
Thanks for the suggestion!
Roger
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Brømsø Nielsen [mailto:jona...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:23 PM
To: raha...@ualr.edu
Cc: 'Bill Ward'; module-authors@perl.org
Subject: Re: ARGH! (was FW
Honestly I just left the default perlcritic test script in my package as
generated by Module::Starter. This was the first time I had done so, and I
really had no idea about Perl::Critic until last night when my module
failed
smoke testing after upload to CPAN. From the test script I am
?)
Roger
-Original Message-
From: Chris Dolan [mailto:ch...@chrisdolan.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:44 PM
To: raha...@ualr.edu
Cc: 'Jonas Brømsø Nielsen'; module-authors@perl.org
Subject: RE: ARGH! (was FW: Perl Critic and (honest) hash references)
Honestly I just left
be
avoided.
... is prominently displayed in the module.
Thanks!
Roger
-Original Message-
From: Bill Ward [mailto:b...@wards.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:11 AM
To: raha...@ualr.edu
Subject: Re: ARGH! (was FW: Perl Critic and (honest) hash references)
What
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Jonas Brømsø Nielsen jona...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Roger,
How do you perform your perlcritic runs?
I can recommend the verbosity setting 8
perlcritic --verbose 8
This gives you quite friendly policy identifiers
From: Bill Ward b...@wards.net
This gives you quite friendly policy identifiers
[ValuesAndExpressions::ProhibitConstantPragma] Pragma constant used
at line 22, column 1. (Severity: 4)
What's wrong with 'use constant'?
Well, nothing's wrong with it. It does, however, get clumsy in
On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
Still, that's bogus for ordinary hashes... it should only care
about that for objects. Though I wonder how it could possibly know
the difference.
Can we define an object as a blessed hash reference? And leave
unblessed hashes available as
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:03 +, Ezra Cooper e...@ezrakilty.net
wrote:
On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
Still, that's bogus for ordinary hashes... it should only care
about that for objects. Though I wonder how it could possibly know
the difference.
Only by executing
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Curtis Jewell
perl.module-auth...@csjewell.fastmail.us wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:03 +, Ezra Cooper e...@ezrakilty.net
wrote:
On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
Still, that's bogus for ordinary hashes... it should only care
about
This was caused by the tester having Perl::Critic::Nits installed, which is not
part of core Perl::Critic.
Perl::Critic tests should NOT be enabled by default for any CPAN distribution.
Do with your P::C test whatever you do with the rest of your author tests to
prevent them running by
23 matches
Mail list logo
