in reply to RFC: Integer::Partition::Unrestricted

That's very cool!

Recall, however, that pos is a Perl keyword, so you might want to use something else. In general, I like to spell out the words (and ambs has an article on this in the next issue of The Perl Review).

--
brian d foy <brian@stonehenge.com>
Subscribe to The Perl Review

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Integer::Partition::Unrestricted
by Limbic~Region (Chancellor) on Feb 28, 2006 at 13:18 UTC
    brian_d_foy,
    Yes, pos and next are both Perl keywords. I am currently ambivalent on both points you raise. I could make the argument that there is enough visual distinction between a method call and a built-in call not to confuse the two or that shortened names for things have thrived in Unix for years, but I won't.

    You have much more experience writing software for others than I do so I will take your advice. There were comments made by diotalevi and others in the CB that I will take as well. I solicited comments because I don't do this for a living ;-)

    Cheers - L~R

[reply]

      You could make that argument, but it fails when you need to use those builtins inside the package that defines those methods. And, just because Unix is vowel-deficient doesn't mean that you need to be. :)

      --
      brian d foy <brian@stonehenge.com>
      Subscribe to The Perl Review
[reply]
        You could make that argument, but it fails when you need to use those builtins inside the package that defines those methods. And, just because Unix is vowel-deficient doesn't mean that you need to be. :)

        Well - that depends on how you call them. As long as you carry on calling them as methods you'll be just fine - inside the declaring package or not.

        Personally I'm anti using keywords in procedural/functional APIs for exactly the reason you put forward. For OO interfaces I think it's fine - as long as the functionality matches the keywords they're copying. pos works well for me in this instance.

[reply]

In Section Meditations