There's more than one way to do things | |
PerlMonks |
Re^6: CPAN modules for inspecting a Perl distribution?by Tux (Canon) |
on Oct 14, 2018 at 16:42 UTC ( [id://1224019]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Please go ahead. But note that not everybody will use it in the same way. I'd use it from my development folder, which holds sources and builds. I use cpan (not cpanm) but others may use different ways/tools/means. My script now hold - but does not report - also the information of the sub-analysis, which opens up to things like average LOC per sub/method and average lines-of-comment per sub/method. Problem in that is that this analysis does not include the docs that surround them or docs of the subs embedded in the main doc, possibly after the __END__, so any ratings from this module will be subjective. Personally I am not a big fan of blank lines, but does that have any impact on the quality of the code? Neither do I use a lot of comments, but I think my subs/methods are well documented in the main docs. Is that of influence on your ratings? Should it? In my tests I found one file with non-standard ratings:
That is 1.15 lines of code per sub/method :) The "doc" says 2 lines, but all I see is one single line of comment that tells me the file is generated. Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|