Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2006
On 16 jun 2006, at 17.30, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:58:01 +0200, Claes Jakobsson > <claes@surfar.nu> wrote: > >> Another thing I like with Java and dot-not is that they clearly state >> how to define APIs. Most (if not all) >> Java libraries I've been using has a feeling of consistency because >> they all useCamelCase. Yes, there is perlstyle, but >> honestly how many of the CPAN authors have actually read it or cares >> what it says. CPAN is a mess of various styles. >> >> Maybe there should be some TPF-approval stamp on modules that follows >> certain API guidelines setup by some group (maybe p5p) in order to >> narrow the diversity of styles. > > I don't think so. CPAN is known for it's functionality and > versatility. > If there would be a treshold like you propose, many, if not most, > authors > (including me) would not care to contribute to CPAN. I might have expressed myself a bit sloppy. Anyone should still be allowed to contribute whatever they like to CPAN in whatever API-style they want. But in order to get the magic TPF- approval stamp it must follow a distinct set of guidelines. In the long run this would make it easier for users to select what modules for doing X they should use. > Everyone (including me) uses "the best style". All other styles > will hinder > the creativeness of their minds. The internal style of a module shouldn't matter to anyone. It's just their public API that I think would benefit from being consistent. Inconsistency scares many potential Perl developers away. However, this discussion probably makes more sense on cpan- discuss@perl.org Cheers, Claes