:
Speakers of a natural language are allowed to have differing skill
levels, to speak different subsets of the language, to learn as they go,
and, generally, to put the language to good use before they know the whole
language. You don't know all of Perl yet, just as you don't know all of
English. But that's Officially Okay in Perl culture. You can work with
Perl usefully, even though we haven't even told you how to write your own
subroutines yet.
And, yes, I think that applies even to code published on CPAN.
If there are *bugs*, report them.
--
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:35:03 +0100
From: Abigail abig...@abigail.be
Subject: Re: cpan you have to see
To: London.pm Perl M\[ou\]ngers london.pm@london.pm.org
Message-ID: 20121212183503.GA25786@almanda
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:57:39AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
On 12/12/2012 07:12 AM, Leon Brocard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:29:24AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
i can't say much about this but you have to look at the code here.
https://metacpan.org/author/PERLOOK/
I congratulate Alexej on joining the CPAN authors club. Instead of
making fun
of him on a mailing list why not engage with him and help him improve?
look at his early rt ticket replies. and i did engage him and admonish
his attitude. his reply was more normal but he still thinks his code is
doing something useful and even correct. i will point him in better
directions later today.
but he should be learning basic perl on his own box and wait for
publishing until he has something to show. what is up there is very
broken ('#' is false in his world) and he doesn't know it.
The power of CPAN is that it is available to *ALL*.
Noone is forcing you to use what's there. If you think it's crappy, don't
use it. If it pisses you off people prefer to use a module that you think
is crappy, write something better. After all, most people just want to
fix a problem, and they don't (usually rightly) how it's solved.
If only code that is approved by a cabal is allowed on CPAN, it will
quickly become something else then it's now.
Abigail
--
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:09:55 +
From: Peter Sergeant p...@clueball.com
Subject: Re: cpan you have to see
To: London.pm Perl M[ou]ngers london.pm@london.pm.org
Message-ID:
CAHyrgodKxjVrfUvQaYH2Ymy_2Bz5T283sKva-xRd=560iiq=
i...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Gareth Harper spansh+lon...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 December 2012 17:57, Joseph Werner telco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Gareth Harper
spansh+lon...@gmail.com
wrote:
PBP and I disagree with you on this one, Gareth. When a sub does a
return 0; to a list context, that is interpreted as true. A bare
return; is best practice.
I stand corrected.
Don't stand corrected too quickly - the idea that you should always use a
bare *return()* is far from universally accepted - you can bite yourself
just as easily in reverse by using bare return, and getting an empty list
where you expected a false or undefined value:
https://gist.github.com/4270506
The boolean argument is reaching, at best. Perl programmers frequently use
numeric 0 as a false value, and yet no-one is saying you should write code
like:
sub lock_count {
if ( $lock_counter ) {
return $lock_counter;
} else {
return;
}
}
Just in case someone has decided to take your input in to an array,
before asking if lock_count is true.
If you're using a bare return then all your returns should be
*wantarray*dependent, or you're making the code even less predictable
- making the
*return* of an undefined value the only context-dependent *return* in a sub
is crazy talk!
The simple rule here is: write functions that return either a list, or a
scalar, and not both, and be explicit in your function documentation which
you're expecting to return.
-P
--
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:53:34 +
From: Hakim Cassimally hakim.cassima...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: cpan you have to see
To: London.pm Perl M[ou]ngers london.pm@london.pm.org
Message-ID:
cam-p+0uqj9yvq8rdm4yvra36-vmjk45iwqwjw1+kxmsilh9...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Alex,
I'm sorry that you've had a bad initial experience of CPAN and now of
this mailing list.
On 12 December 2012 17:21, Alexej Magura perl...@cpan.org wrote:
As for my rt replies, what did you expect I was gonna say: 'Oh, my bad I
wrote the worst module in the world and you're the king of all; here let
me
just remove it real quick.'? Think again.
The RT commenter who wrote:
This isn't python's pypi where everybody is encouraged to upload for
fun whether useful or not. Only upload something
