Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Steve Peters wrote:
Why define a method to return a negative value ? DONT_CLONE() that returns
true seems more logical.
The only problem with DONT_CLONE() is the old issue with negative logic
functions (i.e. return true when false). Thinking in double negatives
is usually confusing, so if we can avoid it, that would be best.
That's exactly the point that bothers me, but apparently I'm bothered by
the opposite thing as you, so avoid speaking about "intuitive api" in
this thread :)
Not having a function FOO and having a function FOO that returns 0 / ""
/ undef is close. Thus the verb FOO should reflect a setting which is
_not_ the default -- as we force to define the FOO method to have it
return 1 (or another true value).
But not avoiding a double negative when you can do it is not good :)
so names like PREVENT_CLONE or BLOCK_CLONE or ABORT_CLONE might be
better.
I agree with Rafael's logic. Let's have it DONT_CLONE then.
--
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
