Re^5: Can I please have *simple* modules?

When I do 'man List::Util', I hit a slash, type the name of the function I want the manual of, hit return, and it appears. When I do 'man POSIX', I hit a slash, type the name of the function I want the manual of, hit return, and it appears.

No difference.

There's no difference if you know exactly what you're looking for.

Ovid $ man POSIX | wc -l
    1622
Ovid $ man List::Util | wc -l
     159

You're assuming the person knows what they're looking for. If they don't and they have only a vague notion that the package in question supplies what they need, it can be a long slog indeed to find the answer. Searching for poorly named functions is harder. Verifying the behavior of complicated functions is harder. I'm not saying shorter/simpler is better, but it's often easier to work with.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.

Comment on Re^5: Can I please have simple modules?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Can I please have simple modules? by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Nov 23, 2005 at 21:42 UTC
If they don't know what they are looking for, splitting POSIX up into 10 modules doesn't make it any simpler. They will now have to search 10 manuals, and the number of lines of documentation won't decrease. `Perl --((8:>*`	[reply]
Re^7: Can I please have simple modules? by Anonymous Monk on Nov 25, 2005 at 18:07 UTC
If they don't know what they are looking for, splitting POSIX up into 10 modules doesn't make it any simpler. They will now have to search 10 manuals, and the number of lines of documentation won't decrease. It might well help, if the sub-modules were well organized. If I was doing POSIX compliant file manipulations, for example, I wouldn't bother reading the manual for the date manipulation and timezone handling sub-module. Sure the total amount of documentation is the same: but the number of lines of documentation that I need to read in order to solve my problems is decreased if the modules are better organized. It's really the same principle that leads us to we split our code into modules in the first place. If you split code (or documentation) up into logically ordered pieces, then you only have to read the code (or documentation) that applies to what you're working on; not the entire program (or manual page). If done right, it can save a lot of time and effort -- Ytrew Q. Uiop	[reply]
Re^8: Can I please have simple modules? by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Nov 25, 2005 at 22:52 UTC
I don't get it. Seriously. Are you claiming that if POSIX is the way it is, it's impossible to group functions in the documentation by functionality? That's something I refuse to believe. `Perl --((8:>*`	[reply]