develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from May 2016

Re: Indirect object syntax

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Glenn Golden
May 20, 2016 12:43
Re: Indirect object syntax
Message ID:
Abigail <> [2016-05-20 14:16:10 +0200]:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:32:37AM +0000, Ed Avis wrote:
> > I see that there is a general consensus that indirect object syntax is
> > discouraged and should be removed from documentation examples.  It is time
> > to revisit Kent Fredric's proposal at
> > <>?
> > 
> While I don't favour indirect objection notation (other than print),
> I'm weary of eliminating documentation about it. Documentation isn't
> just to learn on how to code something, it's also very useful to
> understand someone elses code.
> There's still too much code out there which uses
>     $obj = new Some::Class;
> to throw indirect object notation documentation out of the window.
> (For a long time, we told people that this was the way to create a
> new object)
> By all means, document the disadvantages of using indirect object
> notation, but don't deprive people from their means to understand
> existing code.

+1.  Doc for existing (even though discouraged) idioms should be maintained
for quite some time, years imo.

As an example: It was beneficial for me (as Resident Moron on the list here,
non-expert user) to have come across doc references to the old deprecated
Pkg'Name() notation, pointing out that it was no longer in use and 
saying a few words about its history.

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About