Rajnish, et al,
you ask a really tough question.... one that will not
be that easy to answer as the responses have noted:
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 12:32 , Timothy Johnson wrote:
> Standard #1 TIMTOWTDI :)
'thawak, thwack, thwack' - uh, hold it, that is orthodoxy... 8-)
but think about his problem for a moment - they are trying to do
a 'standards' of a language that is not itself 'strongly typed'
and as such will by its very nature be what is classifiable as
a 'living document' - since as they learn more about this over
that they will have to grow out the document...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Geerinckx
>
> on Tue, 16 Apr 2002 06:39:48 GMT, Rajnish_aggarwal wrote:
>
>> I am preparing a standards document for defining the PERL Coding
>> Standards. Any inputs on this will be highly welcome. I will post the
>> document on the list for the benefit of other once completed.
>
> Did you already try
>
> perldoc perlstyle
Clearly a good starting place!
and then one should of course have the obligatory
perldoc perl
to see the current kvetch of all the current kvetches.
As such, Ranjish needs to think in terms of an 'online'
resource - such as a webPage Section - in which they
can keep updating from the 'lessons learned'.....
When even the power house jendra, like myself, has
open concerns about 'unpack' as a function - when
felix did the great job of demonstrating that it is
clearly the CORRECT choice.... we should:
a) advocate to Ranjish to document that as a
better standard than the bad habits we have used?
b) advocate that 'what we feel safer with' should be
what they adopt????
If they start with a webPage of URL's - then they have
the first round of the fight solved - sorta.....
ciao
drieux
---
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
