Front page | perl.module-authors |
Postings from June 2008
Re: Fwd: New CPANTS metrics
From: Gabor Szabo
June 10, 2008 12:36
Re: Fwd: New CPANTS metrics
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Eric Roode <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> extracts_nicely: How much of a problem is this, really?
>> A lot of people hate tarballs/zip-files that spew their content into the
>> current dir. Especially if the offending dists contains lots of files.
>> Or a file with the same name as one you had in the dir...
> I can agree with that; I just question how much of a problem it is.
I don't have stats but I'd like to believe that part of the problem went
away because CPANTS pointed out the problem.
> The cpants.perl.org site claims that 524 distributions fail this test;
> however, at least one of those appears to be erroneous: My
> Config::Vars module does indeed come packaged as a tarball that
> unpacks into its own directory, yet it is listed as failing.
> So I guess: consider this a bug report. And perhaps there are other
> distros that do not really have this problem.
thanks, if Thomas keeps his tuits low I'll try to check this but he is
gate and knowledge keeper.
>>> use_strict: Misguided. "use strict" is a valuable tool for
>>> developers, but it is not necessary (or even desirable) in all
>> Huh? Do you us to head back to the funny times of Matts Script Archive?
> Well of course not. But "use strict" is simply a tool for helping
> developers write modules and programs more correctly.
> I guess it does show the end-user of a module that the module author
> is smart enough not to shoot himself in the foot. The module author
> might be smart enough without strict.pm too, but how can one tell?
> I guess that's the CPANTS logic.
What if I have to go and change something in your module?
I know I am not smart enough to work without the hand holding
of use strict and use warnings.
So I can quickly break the module. Maybe I won't even notice but
someone who uses my version will start complaining. To you...
I might be a bit more clever and add use strict and use warnings before
I start changing your code.
But what if you used symbolic refs in some areas?
Now it won't compile and I have no clue in which area to disable strict.
>>> has_example: Possibly useful, but poorly implemented (or possibly
>>> poorly documented). Most modules that include examples do so in an
>>> "Examples" section of the POD, not in a separate file or directory.
>>> The has_example documentation implies that it'll only be satisfied by
>>> a separate file or directory.
>> Can you back up the statement regarding "Most modules .. do so in an
>> Examples section"? If yes, I'd love to integrate the code you have
>> written to do so into CPANTS, to make it even better.
> I can't back it up statistically, only anecdotally: Many modules I've
> used have "Examples" sections in the POD. Very few have an Examples
> directory. (cpants.perl.org lists over 11,000 that do not meet this
Personally I never liked this metric either. Most of my modules fail on it
but I think instead of adding empty eg/ directories I'll just live with the
knowledge that for the time being my modules are not perfect.
And one does not even need to look at them to know that :-)