Re: Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder

I agree that the semicolon placement is something that we don't see much around here. There is a good reason for doing it that way in some other languages. For example, unnecessary semicolons tended to compile into extra assembly language instructions in Borland Turbo Pascal 3.0. The module's unusual style minimizes extra semicolons while still making it obvious if one is left out.

There is also some other cleverness in the module, but I've seen more extreme examples in some well-respected code. Is the complaint really just about non-standard semicolons?

After running the module through perltidy a few times, the semicolon placement went away, the braces were where I expected them, and I was left with an interesting read.

I'll probably stick with CGI::Application, though.

It should work perfectly the first time! - toma

Comment on Re: Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder by perrin (Chancellor) on May 03, 2004 at 04:51 UTC
Is the complaint really just about non-standard semicolons? I wasn't even complaining about it really. I just thought it was unique and worth looking at. I wouldn't want someone to use this style on a project I was working on because it creates an additional barrier for the vast majority of people who are used to reading code in the style that most perl books show, but it doesn't make me automatically distrust the module. (The Makefile.PL issue might, but that's entirely separate.)	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder
by perrin (Chancellor) on May 03, 2004 at 04:51 UTC

Is the complaint really just about non-standard semicolons?

I wasn't even complaining about it really. I just thought it was unique and worth looking at. I wouldn't want someone to use this style on a project I was working on because it creates an additional barrier for the vast majority of people who are used to reading code in the style that most perl books show, but it doesn't make me automatically distrust the module. (The Makefile.PL issue might, but that's entirely separate.)

[reply]