[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (techy) Code specs?
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: (techy) Code specs?
- From: Mark-Jason Dominus <mjd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:26:23 -0500
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:23:36 +1100." <19981115202336.D3347@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
> The current ZigZag code is messy to -look- at.
I don't really have time to discuss this in detail just now, but:
> Some but not all of the functions use prototypes.
I honestly do not understand what the prototypes are there for anyway.
I imagine that someone put them there because they thought that they
were going to get better argument type checking, because that is why
other languages have prototypes. But that is not what Perl prototypes
are there fore. Perl prototypes do not provide better argmuent type
checking. Instead, they are there so that you can emulate the
behavior of the Perl internal functions.
Also, most function calls use the `&f' form, and that form disables
the prototype checking anyway.
> Ditto trailing brackets for functions with no arguments.
> prototypes suck