Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Stupid mistakes I repeatedly make

by DrWhy (Chaplain)
on Mar 28, 2005 at 14:38 UTC ( #442819=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Stupid mistakes I repeatedly make
in thread Stupid mistakes I repeatedly make

I usually avoid shift unless I specifically need that array reduction behavior. In the context of parameter processing this is usually in OO-land when one method needs to call another with the same arguments it was given, e.g.

sub method1 { my $self = shift; ... maybe do some stuff ... $self->method2(@_); ... maybe do some more stuff ... return $something; } # or even more simply sub method2 { shift->method3(@_) }

Otherwise I always my($c,...) = @_;

--DrWhy

"If God had meant for us to think for ourselves he would have given us brains. Oh, wait..."


Comment on Re^3: Stupid mistakes I repeatedly make
Select or Download Code
Re^4: Stupid mistakes I repeatedly make
by merlyn (Sage) on Mar 28, 2005 at 17:52 UTC
    I deliberately use shift now, more and more, for two reasons:
    • I have a personal coding convention that all methods should begin with "my $self = shift" (or "my $class = shift" for class methods).
    • It opens up a place for me to comment on the expected type:
      sub map_names { my $mapping = shift; # hashref of first-last names my $insensitive = shift; # boolean: should uppercase be the same? my @names = @_; # remaining parameters are names ... }
      With the "my ($x, $y, $z) = @_" style, I don't have a clean place for those comments, unless I want to break the list on the left across many lines (ick).

    -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
    Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

      With the "my ($x, $y, $z) = @_" style, I don't have a clean place for those comments, unless I want to break the list on the left across many lines (ick).

      Why not just put the type documentation into the embeded programmer documentation above your function? To call your function correctly, others need to know what they can and can't pass to it, and what will happen if they do. In other words, the type information is a valuable part of your function interface documentation.

      I embed the documentation for my function interfaces (as well as general 'programmer' documentation), within a special pod section, dedicated to the "programmerdocs" pod translator. When I need to extract the user documentation, the regular pod translator ignores the programmerdocs section. When I need to extract the programmer documentation, I have a twenty line perl script that extracts the 'programmmerdocs' section, and pipes the results of those sections to the standard pod translator.

      It's a bit of an abuse of the pod translator concept, but it works, and it keeps the two kinds of embeded documentation separatate, and easy to access. If anyone has a better method for keeping distict forms of documentation separate, I'm open to suggestions. So far, abusing pod has worked for me.

      I like extractable function documenation, because it allows a tester to write unit tests for all the functions without reading any of the implementation details. If the code doesn't match the documentation, the coder needs to fix one or both of his code or documentation.
      --
      Ytrew

        Why not just put the type documentation into the embeded programmer documentation above your function?
        That creates a distance between the action and the documentation. That's harder to read for the maintainance programmer (the further away, the more movement in the editor needs to be done). It also makes easier for the documentation and the code to get out of sync.
        To call your function correctly, others need to know what they can and can't pass to it, and what will happen if they do.
        But the comments merlyn was making weren't intended for the user (then they would be in the POD) - they were there for the (maintainance) programmer. Two very different beings. With different needs. And different documentation.

        When I need to extract the programmer documentation, I have a twenty line perl script that extracts the 'programmmerdocs' section, and pipes the results of those sections to the standard pod translator.
        I hope I never ever have to maintain your code. Comments should be right there where the code is, and not somewhere tucked away where I need a different tool to read them.
      It also lets you do:
      sub foo { my $param = shift || croak 'Param must be supplied'; }

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://442819]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-09-19 10:12 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (134 votes), past polls