Célestin Matte <celestin.ma...@ensimag.fr> writes:

> Le 11/06/2013 20:09, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
>> Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>>>>       my ($namespace) = @_;
>>>>    my $namespace = shift;
>>>> My impression has been that both are equally common,
>>> The second is the most common in git-remote-mediawiki (but I don't have
>>> any preference nor know what is recommended elsewhere).
>> I wasn't implying I prefer the former.  I was just being curious,
>> and if the latter is more prevalent in the code _and_ Perlcritique
>> does not have any issue with it, it is perfectly fine.
> Perlcritic doesn't have an issue with any of both cases.

OK.  As this topic is about matching the opinion of Perlcritique, I
think it is fine either way (which was the primary thing that I
wanted to find out).

> I think the second method is clearer when there is only one argument,
> because it makes it clear that there is only one.

Hmm, from the maintenance point of view, the second one invites the
next person to extend this function like this:

        my $namespace = shift;
+       my $newargument = shift;
+       my $anotherargument = shift;

If your original were in the first style, instead you would likely to
get this:

-       my ($namespace) = @_;
+       my ($namespace, $newargument, $anotherargument) = @_;

When there is only one argument, it is clear that there is only one
argument in either style.  It is not a strong factor to pick one
style over the other.  Once you start taking more than one argument,
however, I think "it makes it clear what arguments the function
takes" would actually favor the style to split @_ into a list of
local variables.

But as I said earlier, this patch is about following Perlcritique's
advice, and because it does not have opinion on these styles, it is
outside the scope of this patch.

Thanks for checking.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to