Developers of Sympa

[Marc Chantreux <address@concealed>, "address@concealed":David Verdin <address@concealed>]

hello,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:48:01AM +0100, David Verdin wrote:
> >>>sub foo {
> >>>     my ($a, $b, $c) = @_;
> >>>}
> >>>foo($a, $b, $c);
> >>>B) named parameters
> >>>sub foo {
> >>>     my (%params) = @_;
> >>>}
> >>>C) mixed parameters
> >>>sub foo {
> >>>     my ($a, $b, %params) = @_;
> >>>}
> >>>foo($a, $b, option => $c);

> >David, Etienne, Marc, any opinion in this topic  

those are topic from past for me as i use Method::Signatures (and Moo
when i need objects). my opinion would be to use it in Sympa too but i
know it's impossible. So i'll share my thougts without having strong
opinion on them. 

I prefer a mix of B and C (based on my experience trying to follow the
BPB which was frustrating): 

* avoid more than 4 parameters
* every list or hash must be passed as reference 
* so "more parameters" are typically references
* the main subject of the function is always on top or tail of the list 
  (so sometimes i pop $self). 

sub foo {
    my
    ( $obvious_mandatory_self_alike
    , $obvious_mandatory_parameter1
    , $obvious_mandatory_parameter2
    , $options );
} 

i also im a fan of the (_) and (&$;@) prototypes when they are possible.

> >before it turns out into yet another ping-pong discussion between
> >Soji and myself ? 

sorry i'm late on the troll but i was looking on /trunk, not on the list :)

regards


-- 
Marc Chantreux
Université de Strasbourg, Direction Informatique
14 Rue René Descartes,
67084  STRASBOURG CEDEX
☎: 03.68.85.57.40
http://unistra.fr
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet"
    -- Abraham Lincoln