I agree. But it is a "guide" afterall, not a style constitution... :) But perhaps this should be added as the last "guideline". :)
I think it does help to generally agree. The other issue is that the P5EE::* tree is probably mostly going to be wrappers around other modules anyway following a variety of coding standards. eg SOAP::Lite, POE etc ... At 04:24 PM 11/3/01, Greg McCarroll wrote: >* Stephen Adkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have grabbed the Slash style guide, removed/modified > > the offending sections (exit/die, DESTROY, shift), and > > created a proposed P5EE style guide. > > > > All comments are welcome. This is to make code consistency > > possible, not to make our lives difficult. > > > >I'm just going to play devils advocate here and I apologise for coming >in a little late in this thread, however ... > >Lets just assume that someone writes a nice module for CPAN/P5EE, that >is in their own style. Are we really going to ask them to change the >style? I don't really think there will be that many benefits in this >case as historically modules have been written and maintained by just >one person. I'd also suggest that the main `applications' of P5EE >(messaging daemons etc.) will follow suit. > >The idea of a mass of people all working together on a huge CVS tree >is imho, at best over optimistic. > >Now I agree that there needs to be a common style used in >documentation and perhaps examples, so that the person learning how to >write P5EE applications isn't confused by different styles while they >learn, but they most likely will not go poking around in the middle of >modules. > >Greg > >-- >Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/ __________________________________________________ Gunther Birznieks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) eXtropia - The Open Web Technology Company http://www.eXtropia.com/
