Ofer,
With all due respect to Andrew, please remember that his is but one opinion.
I've also now removed any traces of the run() synonym. You're right - why complicate things with no benefit.
I didn't see anything wrong with the concept. Personally I would have done it the other way around (i.e. make prun a synonym for Parallel::Simple::run), but that's a minor point. To me, run is a perfectly reasonable name for the function when fully qualified, but it makes sense not to export (even only when requested) such a simple function name into the global namespace. In fact, I might go even further and name it par_run or somesuch. But that's just me.
Oh, and I do agree with the comments about using
*Parallel::Simple::run = \&prun;
instead of the way you've done it. That's the proper way to create a "synonym" IMHO.
What's funny is that I actually like the parentheses, since I strive to avoid any ambiguity, but I left them off here because I was trying to make my first CPAN module as perl-ish as possible - when in Rome and all that. I'll add parentheses back on.
Using the "without parends" style is perfectly valid. It won't cause a bareword error unless the subroutine is undefined. Many people prefer it. I personally use both ... I know that would drive many people crazy as inconsistent, but I actually feel that sometimes it seems more natural with and sometimes without. Bottom line is go with whichever you personally prefer.
Seriously? Is there anywhere I can learn more about this?
Try
perlfunc system
just for a start.
-- Buddy
