in reply to Re: parent::versioned supports minimum version specification in parent classes
in thread parent::versioned supports minimum version specification in parent classes

I'm not sure what is being requested in this comment. Get rid of the post? The module? That wording? Some concept expressed in the post? Some goal for the module?

I would appreciate feedback that is clear and actionable, and that comes in the spirit of patient, constructive criticism.


Dave

  • Comment on Re^2: parent::versioned supports minimum version specification in parent classes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: parent::versioned supports minimum version specification in parent classes
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 06, 2019 at 01:59 UTC

    We can arrange for approximately equial... ,P.

    The quote is the beginning of some kind of infomercial type justification for writing parent::versioned, you dont need it

    ALso, name seems a tad long, parent::v or parent::mv ...

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      Fair enough on the wording. I've trimmed the post down a bit. Unfortunately that might make these comments seem out of context, but you're right, less is more.

      As for the module name, I agree it's longer than I would prefer, but it's a name that describes its purpose better than ::v or ::mv, or any other name I could come up with as I was working on it. I could let the parent::versioned distribution provide parent::v, for those who wish to save some keystrokes. I'll keep the thought opened to see if any consensus arrives.


      Dave

[reply]

        Your sensibility is perfect I think. Short variable names / descriptors are false economy. They waste 10x more developer time in squinting, guessing, look-ups than they save in typing or appease in decorative sensibility. parent::versioned is straightforward and clear. parent::v, without already knowing the proper context, is the opposite. Thanks for the module!

[reply]

In Section Meditations