Re: Main routines, unit tests, and sugar

The problem with that format is that any variable I have in the main routine, like $name above, is in scope for the whole file. If I'd misspelled $name in the argument list to say_hello(), it could have given rise to a hard-to-trace bug.

Put your subroutines first, at the top of the file, and the 'main' code at the bottom.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re: Main routines, unit tests, and sugar

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Main routines, unit tests, and sugar by stephen (Priest) on Jun 13, 2013 at 05:57 UTC
That's another variant that I see often, and of course it works. I don't prefer it because I then need to scroll down to the bottom to understand the rest of the code. stephen	[reply]
Re^3: Main routines, unit tests, and sugar by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 13, 2013 at 06:07 UTC
Then I just hit ^END and I'm there. (Unless I have a large __DATA__ section, in which case ^F__DATA__ takes me there.) The main advantages of subroutines at the top is that it avoids accidental closures and the need for pre-declarations for prototype checking. But I realise that it is a personal preference thing. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks