Well, here's your chance to apply them.

It's good to see that TOMMY++ asks what we think about it. It appears my post wasn't useless. However, I'm not into OO, and don't think procedural and OO interfaces should be mixed the way OOorNo does. But since it's documented now (that's the way to go, Tommy!), I'll read the documentation to find out how and when the module can be useful. Until then, I'm not able to say anything more about it than I did in my original post in this thread.

Who's going to do that? How will disputes be resolved? What gives one person the right to prevent another from sharing their code in an open forum like CPAN? If people can't be bothered to do QA on a module before using it, they deserve the consequences.

A voting or reviewing system on search.cpan.org would be great. Maybe a namespace should be introduced for new modules that haven't been reviewed yet.

I don't buy the "Gives perl a bad name" argument either. What's next? Trying to prevent them from using established protocols to distribute their code?

CPAN is one of Perl's strengths. Without CPAN, Perl wouldn't be half as useful as it is now. CPAN is not good because code is shared with it. It is good because good code is shared with it.

- Yes, I reinvent wheels.
- Spam: Visit eurotraQ.

It appears my post wasn't useless.

Well, I don't know if most people would react to it the way I have-- if that's what you mean. But at least I got the wake-up call. It's just not quite as pleasant waking up to a fire alarm as it is waking up to an alarm clock.

I appreciated your initial comments and critique, though I didn't much appreciate being called names. I'm sorry I provoked that kind of anger. Please excuse my mistake --that goes for everyone. But for good or bad, I'm not sorry for living :o|

If it's any consolation, perhaps its something to consider that the odds of someone wanting to help rather than hinder are much greater than what may have been suspected. When taking into account that it requires a good-heart and a strong belief in selfless service to others for the benefit of all; a good deal of time and effort outside of life's other duties (like family, paying work); and a noteworthy resolve to go through the process of making a contribution to the CPAN and to the world (_wow_), I think the chances are in our favor that the contributor truly wants to help, to better, to serve, to do good.

I would like to think that this is true, and my reason for so reasoning: why would I (just one among many) submit to such railing rebuke as that which I've encountered and still want whole-heartedly to do what I set out to do in the first place, to help out at substatial personal sacrifice so people everywhere are a little more happy to use Perl;? If I didn't care about CPAN, Perl, and people, I wouldn't care to persist.

I think it takes more than a fool to do that, I think it takes at least an ignoramous or a chump or something.

I'll read the documentation to find out how and when the module can be useful. Until then, I'm not able to say anything more about it than I did in my original post in this thread.

Thanks for taking the time to do that Juerd. I appreciate it a lot.

--
Tommy Butler, a.k.a. TOMMY

   Visit the ooOPps! Code Library
   http://ooopps.sourceforge.net/pub

   see if I'm online »http://ooopps.sourceforge.net/online

   ICQ uin: 163915821
   Y! msgr: tommy_the_butler
     email: perlmonks@atrixnet.com

Well said. Not only did you respond in a very polite, articulate, and constructive manner consistant with the free software philosophy, but you did it in response to a completely unobscured personal flame.

I'm very impressed, and that doesn't happen often.

Well done. Now if you'd just lc your name, I will be able to sleep soundly again 8^D

However, I'm not into OO

If you can criticize any of his code, then you can suggest how to improve it. Whether or not you're "into" OO or not does not reduce your ability to suggest a better regex, data structure, etc.

It's easy to flame someone's code. I'll be far more impressed if (when?) you help him fix it.

Maybe a namespace should be introduced for new modules that haven't been reviewed yet.

This is a good idea. Splitting CPAN into reviewed/non-reviewed modules and displaying only the reviewed by default would be a very good comprimise in my opinion. The questions of who should do these reviews still remains but with a system to address judgements that are perceived unfair, it would probably work out well.

See what quality of discussion is possible when people are something resembling civil?

I'll be far more impressed if (when?) you help him fix it.

IMO the code in OOorNo is unfixable given the current state of Perl. Hypothetically a slight modification to the Perl source to provide a way of determining that a sub has been called via a method lookup (a flag in caller is my preference) would make the design feasable, however that change if done (I'd like it, and ive seen discussion of it in P5P) would only be useful on 5.10 at the earliest, so I think its probably better to rethink the objectives of the design.

See what quality of discussion is possible when people are something resembling civil?

Looks to me that the standard of debate is pretty good when a node is cantankerous as well.

:-)

--- demerphq
my friends call me, usually because I'm late....