I'll preface by repeating, your advice is generally to be preferred over mine. I know what an excellent hacker and thinker you are. That you got snarky and got the version stuff wrong in your rush to put me in my place makes me think this particular topic is personal to you. It's not to me.

So, did you actually have any real critique to offer (other than the one style point)? I'm sure people would love to learn what can be improved and how (and why).

I was responding to the assertion that it was an excellent template to be emulated or used by anyone. To me, style-wise, it reads like a C-hacker's impression of perl 5.4. Which is fine. I just personally find it jarring and wouldn't recommend it.

#!/usr/bin/env perl is a nice idiom which I think is better than the one you use and I used to. It would have saved me a lot of headaches earlier this year if I had been using the env trick all along.

Putting in a piece of boiler plate which serves (mostly?) to help Apache::Registry which is as I understand it, a shim to give one time to get one's code correctly setup for modperl seems like a mistake.

The part I see in there that might have saved me headaches in my own stuff is the Main(@ARGV) but I think that has more to do with me misunderstanding ARGV for a long time than anything else.

Someone has notched up the "error" output of one of my modules by turning on $^W in one of the dependencies (and displaying tons of harmless warnings about yet another dependency, not my code). I think it's great for development. I don't think you should do things that cause secondary effects in other code for production.

The fact that you end up using camel and underscores together sort of underscores my point that it's bad style. I see the issue it "saves" you from. I have never hit it. I think the last time we had this discussion your justification was that it was necessary because of CGI::Tr. If you really see the "reserved word" as a serious problem, patching perl might be a better idea. I never saw the message before because I either use strict or call subs with more explicit syntax.

Regarding updates: if it's meant to be a living doc, it shouldn't be in a SoPW reply where the updates are not dated and the piece itself says the code is older than 2000.

In reply to Re^5: RFC: Creating unicursal stars (agism) by Your Mother
in thread RFC: Creating unicursal stars by Fox

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.