From: Tom Metro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:11:22 -0400
Bob Rogers wrote:
> ...they could mandate use of "use Enterprise" or whatever its called.
>
> Or maybe Perl::Critic [3] ?
Yes, in theory the 'use criticism'[1] pragma is the same idea. But I'm
sure people comparing Perl + 'use criticism' to other moire restrictive
languages would be quick to point out that 'use criticism' imposes a lot
of overhead and isn't recommend for use in production . . .
But, at the risk of being obscure, you don't have to "use" it in order
to take advantage of it. The Parrot project has started employing
Perl::Critic from "make test", where it incurs no runtime overhead at
all -- and can also be applied to C sources as appropriate.
. . . and that it isn't just one standard - how 'use criticism'
behaves is dependent on one of 5 possible arguments and your
.perlcriticrc file. More generally, Perl::Critic can be customized to
enforce any rule. Such flexibility seems to be just what the critics
of Perl don't want.
-Tom
You would think that the ability to be "stricter than strict" would sell
it to such people. Then again, the real issue is probably groupthink,
which is usually impervious to any argument.
-- Bob
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
