threads::shared::queue and semaphore become Thread::Semaphore

[p5sagit/p5-mst-13.2.git] / pod / perlstyle.pod

diff --git a/pod/perlstyle.pod b/pod/perlstyle.pod
index bfc94a9..3fb9397 100644 (file)
--- a/pod/perlstyle.pod
+++ b/pod/perlstyle.pod
@@ -10,13 +10,13 @@ make your programs easier to read, understand, and maintain.
 
 The most important thing is to run your programs under the B<-w>
 flag at all times.  You may turn it off explicitly for particular
-portions of code via the C<$^W> variable if you must.  You should
-also always run under C<use strict> or know the reason why not.
-The C<use sigtrap> and even C<use diagnostics> pragmas may also prove
-useful.
+portions of code via the C<no warnings> pragma or the C<$^W> variable 
+if you must.  You should also always run under C<use strict> or know the
+reason why not.  The C<use sigtrap> and even C<use diagnostics> pragmas
+may also prove useful.
 
 Regarding aesthetics of code lay out, about the only thing Larry
-cares strongly about is that the closing curly brace of
+cares strongly about is that the closing curly bracket of
 a multi-line BLOCK should line up with the keyword that started the construct.
 Beyond that, he has other preferences that aren't so strong:
 
@@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ to fit on one line anyway.
 
 Always check the return codes of system calls.  Good error messages should
 go to STDERR, include which program caused the problem, what the failed
-system call and arguments were, and VERY IMPORTANT) should contain the
+system call and arguments were, and (VERY IMPORTANT) should contain the
 standard system error message for what went wrong.  Here's a simple but
 sufficient example:
 
@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ sufficient example:
 
 =item *
 
-Line up your translations when it makes sense:
+Line up your transliterations when it makes sense:
 
     tr [abc]
        [xyz];
@@ -260,9 +260,9 @@ Line up your translations when it makes sense:
 Think about reusability.  Why waste brainpower on a one-shot when you
 might want to do something like it again?  Consider generalizing your
 code.  Consider writing a module or object class.  Consider making your
-code run cleanly with C<use strict> and B<-w> in effect.  Consider giving away
-your code.  Consider changing your whole world view.  Consider... oh,
-never mind.
+code run cleanly with C<use strict> and C<use warnings> (or B<-w>) in
+effect.  Consider giving away your code.  Consider changing your whole
+world view.  Consider... oh, never mind.
 
 =item *