On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 07:07:28PM +0200, Abigail wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 07:25:57PM -0400, Casey West wrote:
> > Patch to make code use strict where appropriate and be generally
> > pleasing to the eye, and easy to understand.
>
>
> What exactly are you trying to archieve with this set of patches?
> It just sounds changing one persons coding style into another persons
> coding style.
>
> I don't there's much to benefit from this. In three months, someone
> else comes along who has another idea of code being pleasing to the
> eye and we get another set of jumbo patches doing nothing.
Well, in Casey's defense, his patches weren't (just) "doing nothing",
they did introduce a consistent style, a style that was more or less
according to the perlstyle, and strict-proofed it. All good things,
the last being sometimes debatable [1] but consistency and following
our own suggestions should be obviously good things.
[1] Code fragments aren't supposed to be stand-alone code, and
sometimes for pedagogic purposes you either have split a single piece
of code to several, or you show several alternative implementations,
or you may have unportable code that fails in some platform,
or you may even have intentional errors.
However, I see also the point of patching the code snippets
*just for style* because there are at least as many styles
as there are programmers. (I suspect there are more, because
at least my style has changed considerably over the years...)
So: maybe this issue needs more discussion, and I should pull
out the changes until we agree on what are were trying to do,
really.
> Abigail
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
