Célestin Matte <celestin.matte@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Le 11/06/2013 20:09, Junio C Hamano a écrit : >> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>>> my ($namespace) = @_; >>>> my $namespace = shift; >>>> >>>> My impression has been that both are equally common, >>> >>> The second is the most common in git-remote-mediawiki (but I don't have >>> any preference nor know what is recommended elsewhere). >> >> I wasn't implying I prefer the former. I was just being curious, >> and if the latter is more prevalent in the code _and_ Perlcritique >> does not have any issue with it, it is perfectly fine. > > Perlcritic doesn't have an issue with any of both cases. OK. As this topic is about matching the opinion of Perlcritique, I think it is fine either way (which was the primary thing that I wanted to find out). > I think the second method is clearer when there is only one argument, > because it makes it clear that there is only one. Hmm, from the maintenance point of view, the second one invites the next person to extend this function like this: my $namespace = shift; + my $newargument = shift; + my $anotherargument = shift; If your original were in the first style, instead you would likely to get this: - my ($namespace) = @_; + my ($namespace, $newargument, $anotherargument) = @_; When there is only one argument, it is clear that there is only one argument in either style. It is not a strong factor to pick one style over the other. Once you start taking more than one argument, however, I think "it makes it clear what arguments the function takes" would actually favor the style to split @_ into a list of local variables. But as I said earlier, this patch is about following Perlcritique's advice, and because it does not have opinion on these styles, it is outside the scope of this patch. Thanks for checking. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html