<SNIP>
>
> Personal and asthetic style nits cannot be part of any code
> analysis that
> claims to be non-partisan or even wishes to exist. It will
> make the analysis worthless since nobody will agree on what
> you feel is "good" style. Stick to choices that don't rely
> on asthetics.
>
> Consider that the very style you hold up as bad in #1 many
> people find very good and actually teach (I'm one of them).
>
>
> Ironicly, the style you don't like in #1 is the very style
> you promote in #2. Replace '"black box" commenting' with POD
> documentation and you have in-module POD. Plus the benefits
> of not duplicating your documentation of the module in the
> comments and the POD docs. I guess your beef is
> there's no visually distinctive line of # running down the
> left side of
> the screen to distinguish it from the code when you use POD. Might I
> suggest a good syntax highlighting editor?
I guess mostly the syntax highlighting is the biggest concern. I
use emacs and that does syntax highlighting for perl files. Is there any
IDE out there that highlights POD differently than code? If that was the
case then I probably wouldn't have a problem with in-module POD. I guess
when it comes down to it it's readability and the ability to distinguish
comments from code.
:-p
>
>
> --
> Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
> The key, my friend, is hash
> browns.
> http://www.goats.com/archive/980402.html
>
