[JOB] Perl Software Developer and Database programmer

Peter Hickman peter at semantico.com
Thu Feb 23 13:28:14 GMT 2006

Andy Armstrong wrote:
> I'm not completely opposed to that. Again it depends hugely on the 
> context - but wrapping even a tiny bit of code like that in a 
> descriptive name can - in some circumstances - have value as 
> documentation. For example I've just written
> sub feed_name {
>     return show_name(@_);
> }
> Which makes perfect sense to me - at the moment the name of a feed is 
> the same as the name of a show - but that might change. This way, if 
> it does change, I don't have to go looking at all the instances of 
> show_name() to find out which of them should actually do something 
> different to get the name of a feed.
> --Andy Armstrong, hexten.net

Depends, if you were using it as

my $name_of_feed = feed_name(@list_of_names);

then I would say that it was wrong but if you are using it to add some 
semantic information to the code as in


then it would be right. The first tells you nothing that the receiving 
variable name does not and the fact that you have written a subroutine 
to do this might lead people to think that feed_name() is actually doing 
something important. The second tells you something that is not readily 
apparent, but of course a comment would also do the job.

How would you feel if you came across code littered with routines like 
add_two_numbers(), append_item_to_list(), check_hash_key_is_defined() 
and the like. Too much syntactic sugar for my liking.

More information about the london.pm mailing list