SuperPython reviews

cpanratings
 

RSS | Module Info | Add a review of SuperPython

SuperPython (0.91) ***

This was definitely worth a chuckle.

I don't think it should be under Acme:: – that would spoil the point. Misleading POD? No, it isn't. Intentionally incomplete POD? Of course – it *has* to be.

It gets a 3 from me because it certainly doesn't deserve 5 stars as it's not useful for any practical purpose. OTOH, I don't think it's actually bad for this to be on CPAN, so I'm not rating it 1 or 2 either.

Aristotle Pagaltzis - 2004-02-14T14:06:26 (permalink)

Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

SuperPython (0.91) *****

The documentation is just fine, thanks very much.

By the way, I am not one of Damian's aliases.

Mark Jason Dominus - 2003-12-07T05:32:28 (permalink)

0 out of 1 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

SuperPython (0.91) *****

I'm sorry some people don't get the joke. Reading the source and the example .spy files helps put it all into perspective. Go Damian.

chicks - 2003-12-02T11:10:42 (permalink)

Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

SuperPython (0.91) *****

Hilarious! The point of not putting it under the Acme:: namespace should be obvious. When reading the PODs for the first time, you really think this is serious. The namespace Acme::SuperPython would spoil this.

Mark, thanks for a great parody!

Tassilo v. Parseval - 2003-12-02T02:21:57 (permalink)

1 out of 1 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

SuperPython (0.91) *

Agree. The POD documentation is misleading.

David Manura - 2003-12-01T18:33:28 (permalink)

Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

SuperPython (0.91) *

Belongs under Acme::.

Intended only to be humorous. But it takes a while to figure that out, which is good under Acme, but unfortunate in a top-level package.

mitchellncharity - 2003-09-01T13:49:01 (permalink)

Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No