Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2016
Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> [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 > > <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.perl.perl5.porters/128189>? > > > > > 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