Célestin Matte <celestin.ma...@ensimag.fr> writes:
> Le 11/06/2013 20:09, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
>> Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>>
>>>> my ($namespace) = @_;
>>>> my $namespace = shift;
>>>>
>>>> My impression has been that both are equally common,
>>>
>>> The second is the most common in git-remote-mediawiki (but I don't have
>>> any preference nor know what is recommended elsewhere).
>>
>> I wasn't implying I prefer the former. I was just being curious,
>> and if the latter is more prevalent in the code _and_ Perlcritique
>> does not have any issue with it, it is perfectly fine.
>
> Perlcritic doesn't have an issue with any of both cases.
OK. As this topic is about matching the opinion of Perlcritique, I
think it is fine either way (which was the primary thing that I
wanted to find out).
> I think the second method is clearer when there is only one argument,
> because it makes it clear that there is only one.
Hmm, from the maintenance point of view, the second one invites the
next person to extend this function like this:
my $namespace = shift;
+ my $newargument = shift;
+ my $anotherargument = shift;
If your original were in the first style, instead you would likely to
get this:
- my ($namespace) = @_;
+ my ($namespace, $newargument, $anotherargument) = @_;
When there is only one argument, it is clear that there is only one
argument in either style. It is not a strong factor to pick one
style over the other. Once you start taking more than one argument,
however, I think "it makes it clear what arguments the function
takes" would actually favor the style to split @_ into a list of
local variables.
But as I said earlier, this patch is about following Perlcritique's
advice, and because it does not have opinion on these styles, it is
outside the scope of this patch.
Thanks for checking.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
