I'm interested in what made you choose this style with regards to package variables.
The same principle that motivates the entire thread: to make different things look different. Full qualification seems to me like the natural way to make package variables stand out as such.
Package variables are the worst, because their scope transcends a single file.
I'm less worried about package name changes (my editor can do search and replace fine) than about typos (e.g. assigning to $Typo::foo). If I were to drop this coding practice, this would be the reason. But, anyway, I already refer to all package variables, even those from modules I did not write, using fully qualified names, because I think it makes the code clearer. So this particular practice of mine is an extension of a more general one.
the lowliest monk
In reply to Re^3: coding rules
by tlm
in thread coding rules
by punkish
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |