| 20 Oct 2021 |
 @grahamc:nixos.org | I like that the levels dose out reasonable amounts of errors to fix at a time, but also the lower levels expose real problems that are not just opinionated nit picking | 15:58:47 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | so giving them names like "brutal" and "cruel" and "harsh" feels like unnecessary connotations to attach | 15:59:28 |
 das_j | but I find them funnier to mention in a conversation ;) | 15:59:47 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | for sure :) | 15:59:51 |
 cransom | oh boy. i have a very old perl code base that i assume i'm going to have to update before it can be naturally obsolesced... i wonder if i can crash perlcritic. | 16:09:15 |
 Linux Hackerman | In reply to @grahamc:nixos.org
so giving them names like "brutal" and "cruel" and "harsh" feels like unnecessary connotations to attach Look at Graham, the perlcritic critic! :p | 16:11:53 |
| cransom | oh boy. there are ¤ characters in these package names. | 16:15:56 |
| das_j | haha iconv goes brrrr | 16:16:46 |
| cransom | cod ebase of 62,000 lines of code, 192 errors to fix at perlcritic -5. i wonder how long it would take me to bring this stuff up to perl 5.32 compatibility. | 16:21:04 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | oh not bad | 16:21:30 |
| cransom | not sure. it's a significant amount of copy pasta. but the more difficult part. the only testing this code has ever encountered was people clicking through the site and 'does this look right? i guess' | 16:24:13 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | ouch | 16:32:13 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | does anyone intend on reviewing #1044 (perlcritic level 3)? I'd love some eyes on it, but if not I'm inclined to just press the button | 16:32:43 |
| das_j | I can take a look but I can't guarantee I'll spot all issues ;) | 16:35:17 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | of course not | 16:36:42 |
 Rick (Mindavi) | I looked earlier, but it looks different now :p, don't see any obvious issues but I've never written perl | 16:37:02 |
| Rick (Mindavi) | Was wondering about the dependency that was added though | 16:37:14 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | 👍️just replied on the thread | 16:38:26 |
| das_j | Is there a perlcritic level that complains about calls without parathesis btw? :P | 16:46:44 |
| das_j | that seems really incosistent throughout the codebase and somebody complained about me not fixing it in switch-to-configuration ;) | 16:47:08 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | who knows ... | 16:47:29 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | TIL function signatures are "experimental" but practically not experimental and we should use them | 16:47:40 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | and they work on methods too, while prototypes did not | 16:47:47 |
| das_j |
my @expected_names = ( "bogus-1", "bogus-2" );
| 16:48:27 |
| das_j | shouldn't you use qw here? | 16:48:33 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | I guess | 16:48:43 |
| das_j | apart from the open() vs open thing, it looks good to me | 16:49:07 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | I thought about migrating all the opens to use parens and got lazy ... :) | 16:52:58 |
| das_j | understandable | 17:10:37 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | I made them all open's use parens | 17:16:22 |
