Re: RFC: Algorithm::Damm

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

Comment on Re: RFC: Algorithm::Damm Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Algorithm::Damm by MidLifeXis (Monsignor) on Mar 18, 2013 at 02:01 UTC
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: RFC: Algorithm::Damm
by MidLifeXis (Monsignor) on Mar 18, 2013 at 02:01 UTC

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]