[Bioperl-l] For CVS developers - potential pitfallwith "returnundef"

[Chris Fields]

Agreed, though I think these changes should be implemented at some point
(Conway's argument here makes sense and it is nice for Torsten to check this
out).  If proper tests are written then any changes resulting in errors
should be picked up by checking the appropriate test suite, though I know it
doesn't absolutely guarantee it.  ; P  

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bioperl-l-bounces at lists.open-bio.org [mailto:bioperl-l-
> bounces at lists.open-bio.org] On Behalf Of Rutger Vos
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:53 PM
> To: bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] For CVS developers - potential pitfallwith
> "returnundef"
> 
> Although I agree with the sentiment of following PBP, I'm not so sure
> changing 'return undef' to 'return' *now* will fix any bugs without
> introducing new, subtle ones.
> 
> Chris Fields wrote:
> > Torsten,
> >
> > Any way you can post a list of some/all of the offending lines or
> modules?
> > Sounds like something to consider, but if the list is as large as you
> say we
> > made need something (bugzilla? wiki?) to track the changes and make sure
> > they pass tests; I'm sure a large majority will.
> >
> > I'm guessing Jason would want this somewhere on the project priority
> list or
> > bugzilla, with a link to the actual list, but I'm not sure.  Maybe start
> a
> > page on the wiki for proposed code changes?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: bioperl-l-bounces at lists.open-bio.org [mailto:bioperl-l-
> >> bounces at lists.open-bio.org] On Behalf Of Torsten Seemann
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:19 AM
> >> To: bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> >> Subject: [Bioperl-l] For CVS developers - potential pitfall with
> >> "returnundef"
> >>
> >> FYI Bioperl developers:
> >>
> >> I just audited the bioperl-live CVS and found about 450 occurrences of
> >> "return undef".
> >>
> >> Page 199 of "Perl Best Practices" by Damian Conway, and this URL
> >> http://www.perl.com/lpt/a/2006/02/23/advanced_subroutines.html suggest:
> >>
> >> "Use return; instead of return undef; if you want to return nothing. If
> >> someone assigns the return value to an array, the latter creates an
> >> array of one value (undef), which evaluates to true. The former will
> >> correctly handle all contexts."
> >>
> >> So I'm guessing at least some of these 450 occurrences *could* result
> in
> >> bugs and should probably be changed.
> >>
> >> Your opinion may differ :-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dr Torsten Seemann               http://www.vicbioinformatics.com
> >> Victorian Bioinformatics Consortium, Monash University, Australia
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bioperl-l mailing list
> >> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> >> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bioperl-l mailing list
> > Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> > http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Rutger Vos, PhD. candidate
> Department of Biological Sciences
> Simon Fraser University
> 8888 University Drive
> Burnaby, BC, V5A1S6
> Phone: 604-291-5625
> Fax: 604-291-3496
> Personal site: http://www.sfu.ca/~rvosa
> FAB* lab: http://www.sfu.ca/~fabstar
> Bio::Phylo: http://search.cpan.org/~rvosa/Bio-Phylo/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l