Re: [PATCH v3 07/28] git-remote-mediawiki: Rewrite unclear line of instructions

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2013, 21:55 UTC
Message-ID: <7vwqq08g7u.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <51B784E8.8020700@ensimag.fr>

Célestin Matte <celestin.matte@ensimag.fr> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Le 11/06/2013 20:09, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
>> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>> 
>>>>       my ($namespace) = @_;
>>>> 	my $namespace = shift;
>>>>
>>>> My impression has been that both are equally common,
>>>
>>> The second is the most common in git-remote-mediawiki (but I don't have
>>> any preference nor know what is recommended elsewhere).
>> 
>> I wasn't implying I prefer the former.  I was just being curious,
>> and if the latter is more prevalent in the code _and_ Perlcritique
>> does not have any issue with it, it is perfectly fine.
>
> Perlcritic doesn't have an issue with any of both cases.

OK. As this topic is about matching the opinion of Perlcritique, I think it is fine either way (which was the primary thing that I wanted to find out).

> I think the second method is clearer when there is only one argument,
> because it makes it clear that there is only one.

Hmm, from the maintenance point of view, the second one invites the next person to extend this function like this:

	my $namespace = shift;
+       my $newargument = shift;
+	my $anotherargument = shift;

If your original were in the first style, instead you would likely to get this:

- my ($namespace) = @_; + my ($namespace, $newargument, $anotherargument) = @_;

When there is only one argument, it is clear that there is only one argument in either style. It is not a strong factor to pick one style over the other. Once you start taking more than one argument, however, I think "it makes it clear what arguments the function takes" would actually favor the style to split @_ into a list of local variables.

But as I said earlier, this patch is about following Perlcritique's advice, and because it does not have opinion on these styles, it is outside the scope of this patch.

Thanks for checking.