Zoiks. This whole perceived exponential speedup of the space time continuum as one grows older kind of freaks me out.
Happy upcoming November, I enjoyed your last round and am looking forward to this round of posts.
-- Douglas
But don't documentation and tests help the developer? If I write my documentation first, it makes me think about the API, and because I don't like writing documentation it makes me think about simplifying it. Which is good for my code.
If I write my tests next, it gives me a baseline of correctness. I get to try to write the simplest code possible to pass my tests. Which is good for my code.
I see your point about ease of consumption, and I certainly appreciate it when folks rock an awesome change log. Is there any motivating factor for the developer, other than extra cookies, that you can think of?
Cheers,
-- Douglas Hunter
"If they have agreed to receive this communication" is the right one, and the one that the answer is "yes" to.
-- Douglas Hunter
I'm probably not doing a good job of answering "what do you test", but that's okay, my test suite gives me a pass [grin].
I'd be worried enough that someone would accidentally throw some code together that uses reciprocal as an object method (and therefore uses an int-ified string-ified object as the divisor) that I would probably add some parameter validation, and then just test that my validation worked. I wouldn't feel the need to test the/ operator.
-- Douglas Hunter
I've always had some love for Perl 5's object system. I appreciate that it doesn't foist an ideology on me, instead providing me tools to build and use an object system that I'm comfortable with.
Typically for me that object system uses blessed hashes, hand-written accessors (with hand-written validation), hand written method parameter validation and explicit manipulation of @ISA.
Why don't I use X for (accessor generation, parameter validation, etc.)?
