From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cleaning perl code |
Date: | 2020-04-11 17:31:16 |
Message-ID: | 21773.1586626276@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 4/11/20 12:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is there a way to modify the test so that it only complains when
>> the final return is missing and there are other return(s) with values?
>> That would seem like a more narrowly tailored check.
> Not AFAICS:
> <https://metacpan.org/pod/Perl::Critic::Policy::Subroutines::RequireFinalReturn>
Yeah, the list of all policies in the parent page doesn't offer any
promising alternatives either :-(
BTW, this bit in the policy's man page seems pretty disheartening:
Be careful when fixing problems identified by this Policy; don't
blindly put a return; statement at the end of every subroutine.
since I'd venture that's *exactly* what we've done every time perlcritic
moaned about this. I wonder what else the author expected would happen.
> That would probably require writing a replacement module. Looking at the
> source if this module I think it might be possible, although I don't
> know much of the internals of perlcritic.
I doubt we want to go maintaining our own perlcritic policies; aside from
the effort involved, it'd become that much harder for anyone to reproduce
the results.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-04-11 17:33:06 | Re: Complete data erasure |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2020-04-11 17:27:58 | Re: cleaning perl code |