Developers of Sympa

[Guillaume Rousse <address@concealed>]

Le 18/02/2014 04:33, IKEDA Soji a écrit :
> > > Mandatory parameter(s) are put on the beginning of argument list
> > > as unnamed values, then optional parameter(s) follow as named
> > > values.
> > >
> > > sub foo {
> > >       my $a = shift;
> > >       my $b = shift;
> > >       my %params = @_;
> > >
> > >       do_something($a, $b, $params{'c'});
> > > }
> > Which introduce yet another style, mixing named and positional parameters...
> >
> > So basically, we have three different style for parameters:
> > A) positional parameters
> > sub foo {
> >      my ($a, $b, $c) = @_;
> > }
> > foo($a, $b, $c);
> >
> > B) named parameters
> > sub foo {
> >      my (%params) = @_;
> > }
> > foo(arg1 => $a, arg2 => $b, option => $c);
> >
> > C) mixed parameters
> > sub foo {
> >      my ($a, $b, %params) = @_;
> > }
> > foo($a, $b, option => $c);
> >
> > I guess everyone here will agree than enforcing consistent style is
> > desirable. Can we have a quick poll on prefered style among other
> > developpers ?
> >
> > I'm strongly in favor of B, as the most self-describing one. Then A
> > (simplest), then C.
David, Etienne, Marc, any opinion in this topic before it turns out into 
yet another ping-pong discussion between Soji and myself ?

> How about use of "shift"?
I don't really care about using 'shift', 'pop', 'push' or any other way 
to retrieve subroutine parameters, this is mostly an implementation 
detail. What matters here is enforcing consistant subroutines prototypes.

--
Guillaume Rousse
INRIA, Direction des systèmes d'information
Domaine de Voluceau
Rocquencourt - BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay
Tel: 01 39 63 58 31

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: Signature cryptographique S/MIME