in reply to RFC: App::SFDC

This comment is related to the WWW::SFDC package.

I don't like stuff like

my ($result, $headers) = $self->_call(
  'executeAnonymous',
  SOAP::Data->name(string => $code),
  $options{debug} ? SOAP::Header->name('DebuggingHeader' => \SOAP::Dat
+a->name(
  debugLevel => 'DEBUGONLY'
  ))->uri($self->uri) : (),
);

[download]

because it makes it hard to see what's going on. I would prefer it to build the function arguments separately, like:

my @args = (
  'executeAnonymous'
  SOAP::Data->name(string => $code),
);

if ($options{debug}) {
  # this line should also be cleaned up somehow
  push @args, SOAP::Header->name('DebuggingHeader' => \SOAP::Data->nam
+e(debugLevel => 'DEBUGONLY'))->uri($self->uri);
}

my ($result, $headers) = $self->_call(@args);

[download]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: App::SFDC
by ali0sha (Sexton) on Jul 15, 2015 at 08:25 UTC
    Do you think it's more that just a stylistic/opinion choice? My feeling is that creating intermediate variables and modifying them is less clear because it requires keeping track of more variables over more statements and lines.
[reply]

      It is basically a stylistic choice, but I think it improves the readability of the code a lot. At least to me. I picked this code example because at first glance I simply saw 'stuff', then while looking at it there were 'revelation'-like experiences. Oh! It's a function call! Oh! It's using a ternary operator to build a conditional argument set. Oh! The conditional is just there to help debugging.

      I rewrote the code to make these 3 different aspects more visible and make it easier to mentally skip parts that are probably not relevant to spotting bugs, e.g. the debug conditional.

      Generally I try to format the code in a way that minimizes the mental effort and the time required to recognize the building blocks. Hopefully this helps to reduce the 'TL;DR'-effect when reading / scanning over it and helps to spot possible bugs more easily. That's also the reason why I try to avoid the ternary operator in complicated statements. Sure it's convenient, but '?' is a lot less visibly distinct then 'if ('. In your case I was even able to drop the 'else' branch, because it didn't have any purpose besides satisfying the syntax.

[reply]
        I have to agree that Monk::Thomas' rewrite is quite a bit easier to understand.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom