Re: To script or not to script, that is the question...

The Perl Dr saw a function named Update::update and thought this was fine??

You need that second opinion!

There are a million kinds of updates out there. If I run across a function named update, I have no idea what it does, and I'll curse the person who wrote it with no mercy for the maintainance programmer looking for context.

Please name it something that gives a hint what it does. Something like "update_download" or "make_download_current".

While you're at it, I would leave out the superfluous "return 1". (Are you using that return anywhere?)

Comment on Re: To script or not to script, that is the question...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: To script or not to script, that is the question... by biosysadmin (Deacon) on May 31, 2005 at 22:01 UTC
I concur with tilly. My diagnosis is that your module needs a more specifically named namespace, and possibly a more illustrative name for your subroutine. Weirdly enough, coming up with a perfect name for a subroutine/package/module sometimes takes me longer than the design login and implementation. So, take two rename update's and call us in the morning. :)	[reply]
Re^2: To script or not to script, that is the question... by tlm (Prior) on May 31, 2005 at 17:41 UTC
The return value of `Update::update` is used by the calling code to decide whether there are newly updated primary data files that need reprocessing. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, though I'm open to second opinions on how best to do this, too. the lowliest monk	[reply]
Re^3: To script or not to script, that is the question... by tilly (Archbishop) on May 31, 2005 at 18:06 UTC
That seems reasonable then.	[reply]