On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Eric Roode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> extracts_nicely: How much of a problem is this, really? >> >> A lot of people hate tarballs/zip-files that spew their content into the >> current dir. Especially if the offending dists contains lots of files. >> Or a file with the same name as one you had in the dir... > > I can agree with that; I just question how much of a problem it is.
I don't have stats but I'd like to believe that part of the problem went away because CPANTS pointed out the problem. > > The cpants.perl.org site claims that 524 distributions fail this test; > however, at least one of those appears to be erroneous: My > Config::Vars module does indeed come packaged as a tarball that > unpacks into its own directory, yet it is listed as failing. > > So I guess: consider this a bug report. And perhaps there are other > distros that do not really have this problem. thanks, if Thomas keeps his tuits low I'll try to check this but he is the ultimate gate and knowledge keeper. > [...] >>> use_strict: Misguided. "use strict" is a valuable tool for >>> developers, but it is not necessary (or even desirable) in all >>> circumstances. >> >> Huh? Do you us to head back to the funny times of Matts Script Archive? > > Well of course not. But "use strict" is simply a tool for helping > developers write modules and programs more correctly. > > I guess it does show the end-user of a module that the module author > is smart enough not to shoot himself in the foot. The module author > might be smart enough without strict.pm too, but how can one tell? > I guess that's the CPANTS logic. What if I have to go and change something in your module? I know I am not smart enough to work without the hand holding of use strict and use warnings. So I can quickly break the module. Maybe I won't even notice but someone who uses my version will start complaining. To you... I might be a bit more clever and add use strict and use warnings before I start changing your code. But what if you used symbolic refs in some areas? Now it won't compile and I have no clue in which area to disable strict. >>> has_example: Possibly useful, but poorly implemented (or possibly >>> poorly documented). Most modules that include examples do so in an >>> "Examples" section of the POD, not in a separate file or directory. >>> The has_example documentation implies that it'll only be satisfied by >>> a separate file or directory. >> >> Can you back up the statement regarding "Most modules .. do so in an >> Examples section"? If yes, I'd love to integrate the code you have >> written to do so into CPANTS, to make it even better. > > I can't back it up statistically, only anecdotally: Many modules I've > used have "Examples" sections in the POD. Very few have an Examples > directory. (cpants.perl.org lists over 11,000 that do not meet this > metric). Personally I never liked this metric either. Most of my modules fail on it but I think instead of adding empty eg/ directories I'll just live with the knowledge that for the time being my modules are not perfect. And one does not even need to look at them to know that :-) Gabor
