Re: On the rejected additions to List::Util

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: On the rejected additions to List::Util by Porculus (Hermit) on Apr 28, 2009 at 20:25 UTC
The module author determinate what belongs to the API. Normally, yes. Does that still apply to core modules like List::Util? I'd always assumed that authors gave up a certain measure of control in exchange for having their module distributed as a fundamental part of the Perl standard library. As you pointed out all rejected functions are already in List::MoreUtils. I'm strictly against duplicating every function in all modules. The question is more why List::MoreUtils has to exist at all. Why not put the functions in List::Util and do away with List::MoreUtils completely? Isn't it simpler and cleaner to have one utility module instead of several? The other issue is that List::MoreUtils is not a core module. That means there is no guarantee it will always be available. This is a big problem for many people. We don't all have root on the machines our code runs on. We might not even have access to those machines, in which case we are unlikely to have the clout to insist that third-party modules are installed on them. If functionality is not in the core libraries, we might be forced to reinvent these wheels again and again and again. How is that good? I like clean simple API's much more than a collection of oneliners. Do you think it's cleaner to have all the oneliners copied and pasted into the start of every script that uses them? Do you think it's simpler to have to remember which of several list utility libraries each basic function is in?	[reply]
Re^3: On the rejected additions to List::Util by mr_mischief (Monsignor) on Apr 28, 2009 at 21:18 UTC
The arithmetic mean, geometric mean, mode, median, etc of a group of numbers are not properties of a generic list of scalars. There is no meaningful arithmetic mean of `qw( Porculus mr_mischief metaperl ikegami )` for example. Those are statistical properties, and I believe rightly belong in the Statistics name space rather than the List name space.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: On the rejected additions to List::Util by ysth (Canon) on Apr 29, 2009 at 06:32 UTC
Ah, but L::U caters specially to numbers by having min and max, as well as minstr and maxstr. Why not mean() too? -- Online Fortune Cookie Search Office Space merchandise	[reply]
Re^5: On the rejected additions to List::Util by lodin (Hermit) on Apr 29, 2009 at 11:29 UTC
Re^5: On the rejected additions to List::Util by mr_mischief (Monsignor) on Apr 29, 2009 at 13:24 UTC
Re^6: On the rejected additions to List::Util by parv (Parson) on Apr 29, 2009 at 14:44 UTC
Re^3: On the rejected additions to List::Util by ysth (Canon) on Apr 29, 2009 at 05:08 UTC
The module author determinate what belongs to the API. Normally, yes. Does that still apply to core modules like List::Util? I'd always assumed that authors gave up a certain measure of control in exchange for having their module distributed as a fundamental part of the Perl standard library It's up to the author. See http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/blob_plain/HEAD:/Porting/Contract -- Online Fortune Cookie Search Office Space merchandise	[reply]
Re^3: On the rejected additions to List::Util by borisz (Canon) on Apr 29, 2009 at 16:14 UTC
You do not need root access to use modules or install them. It is just a little more painful to install. The question is more why List::MoreUtils has to exist at all. Why not put the functions in List::Util and do away with List::MoreUtils completely? Isn't it simpler and cleaner to have one utility module instead of several? One reason is I use List::MoreUtils for years and do not plan to change all scripts. But a bit overdone, you ask to fold CPAN into the core? A lot of my scripts use XML::LibXML and DBI and HTML::Template. I like to get them into the core too. Do you think it's cleaner to have all the oneliners copied and pasted into the start of every script that uses them? Do you think it's simpler to have to remember which of several list utility libraries each basic function is in? Often yes, since I have to read learn every silly simple function. Sure it is not a problem, if I add some simple handy functions to my script as well. I even like the split between the core functions and the handy glue. Or you could use List::AllUtils, but thats again not in the core. Boris	[reply]