Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: Inline POD vs. EOF POD

by clemburg (Curate)
on Jul 10, 2001 at 18:43 UTC ( #95315=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Inline POD vs. EOF POD
in thread Inline POD vs. EOF POD

But this problem with docs and code getting out of sync is a real one, and my personal experience (because I can be in-the-bad-way lazy) is that the docs suffer if I don't do inline POD.

You are definitively right here. My personal (bad?) solution to this problem is to write documentation for the user aspect of a module only - and for this I find the "doc writing code sweep" approach quite OK, since the user interface should not change often anyway.

For the rest, I use comments. All in all, I mostly try to write "self-documenting code". But alas, I am not the one to ascertain if I succeed in this.

The worst problem with all this, IMHO, is that there is really no other way to document the interface to your function in the code than by clever paramater naming. And even that is in vain for return parameters. And that in a language that can have an arbitrary number of them, and without types. This is a really weak point in Perl (no way to express function signatures with return types in the code).

What I found in practical work is: you really need to read the code you call. If something does not work as expected, and you are sure your code is not the problem, go and read the code you call (with a nice debugger this is much easier than one thinks).

Christian Lemburg
Brainbench MVP for Perl
http://www.brainbench.com


Comment on Re: Re: Re: Inline POD vs. EOF POD

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://95315]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-07-29 18:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (226 votes), past polls