[perlcritic] fix some severity 4 issues - #1051
Conversation
|
I looked over perlcritic severity 4 warnings and like to ask what to do about the following warnings: fix or silence them? |
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2385
💛 - Coveralls |
f170c72 to
4ac0cd0
Compare
4ac0cd0 to
5478e5c
Compare
steveschnepp
left a comment
steveschnepp
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Globally adding another round of warning is a very good idea.
I'm just not convinced on all the rules :)
|
|
||
| use Params::Validate qw( :all ); | ||
| use List::Util qw( first ); | ||
| use Readonly; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure I am a huge fan of that one as constant is a core feature.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Far from knowing anything: Readonly seems to be a core library and const is a language feature, correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Core library might be a little stretch. It's from CPAN.
Const is from a core lib.
Nothing is a language feature in term of const-ness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Core library might be a little stretch. It's from CPAN.
uh - OK - my misunderstanding of a local path.
In this case I would also tend to stick to the core feature set.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cgzones: can we stick to const or is there a good reason for Readonly?
|
|
||
| package main; | ||
|
|
||
| $ENV{PATH} = '/usr/bin:/bin'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer to revert to package main; to obviously indicate that the above code was in a package.
It could be moved to another file, or the end of this one, but it all feels not as sweet as currently.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cgzones: what do you think?
any comments? |
|
@steveschnepp: what do you think about cgzone's "fix or silence" question? |
|
I am trying to clean up a bit ... @cgzones: can we stick to |
4 participants
No description provided.