On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 10:30:03PM -0600, Chris Fedde wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:54:42 -0600 Nathan Torkington wrote:
> +------------------
> | Lessons learned:
> | * comment subroutine arguments in code
> | * meaningful variable names beat programmatically-descriptive ones
> | hands-down
> +------------------
>
> Your comments are well taken and have been used to illuminate the
> patch below. Because the subroutine does not use any prototyping
> I've removed the prototypish comment. I'll not comment on if it
> would be better written with a prototype. I'm not fond of variables
> that are named as verbs or verb phrases, so $to_shuffle rankles.
> Perhaps my changes meet with your approval.
I don't really care whether you use a prototype or not, but you are wrong
that the subroutine doesn't use any prototyping.
sub fisher_yates_shuffle (\@) { }
*is* different from
sub fisher_yates_shuffle (@) { }
The first allows you to write:
fisher_yates_shuffle @deck;
while the second requires you to write:
fisher_yates_shuffle \@deck;
I do prefer the first one. However, since this fragment is about shuffling
and not about prototypes, I don't feel too strongly about it. But it was
there, and I've heard noone ever having a problem with it, so why change?
Abigail
