I have written my first module for community consumption, and am looking for comments:

I am pulling comments into git issues, so if you want to save the middleman (or provide a pull request), feel free.

--MidLifeXis

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: RFC: Algorithm::Damm
by kcott (Archbishop) on Mar 17, 2013 at 23:40 UTC

    G'day MidLifeXis,

    I haven't tested any of the functionality - just had a read through the documentation. I was pleased to see links explaining the algorithm. My only criticism would be the naming of the function is_valid(): I've seen functions with this name in many pieces of code - perhaps something less generic, to avoid naming collisions, might be a better choice.

    -- Ken

[reply]
[d/l]

      I tried to keep the same interface as Algorithm::LUHN and others in the checkdigit generation / checking problem domain.

      If you don't want to have a collision, use the OO interface (coming Real Soon Now - see issue list), or skip the imports (use Algorithm::Damm ()) and use the fully packaged sub name. You don't even need to skip the imports, as nothing is imported (well, is not supposed to be imported) by default.

      I have to mull on this for a bit, but right now I am on the 'leave it alone' side of the fence.

      --MidLifeXis

[reply]
[d/l]
Re: RFC: Algorithm::Damm
by choroba (Cardinal) on Mar 18, 2013 at 09:16 UTC
    Just a minor note: Do you think History is important enough to be placed before Functions?
    لսႽ† ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ
[reply]

      Well, uh, ya know, errr.

      Nope. Didn't quite look at POD sections that way, but that is a sensible approach (importance). Thanks.

      --MidLifeXis

[reply]

Back to Meditations