# from David E. Wheeler
# on Saturday 27 September 2008 13:55:
>> Could we have that with the original indentation please?
>
>Which is what? I can't make heads or tails of it.
Ack. I should have said "without the 32-line ternary". Please. I'm
all for refactoring, but some of that should really come in more than
one piece.
Otherwise it is very difficult to review.
I think this needs to seek "one of the other ways to do it":
# Allow to work in class or object context.
my $x = do { no strict 'refs'; $self->{properties} };
return $x->{$property} unless @_;
When you have two 'it's, one of them should have a name
for (reverse shift->_mb_classes) {
@out{ keys %{ $valid_properties{$_} } } = map {
$_->()
} values %{ $valid_properties{$_} };
}
But, I have doubts about the "everything is a sub" approach here. If
the default is a subref, that implies that we always call it (e.g.
creating a new anonymous ref ala moose) rather than ever holding the
value -- and if that were the case then valid_properties_defaults()
would not exist? That is, take a look at _set_defaults().
Thanks,
Eric
--
Turns out the optimal technique is to put it in reverse and gun it.
--Steven Squyres (on challenges in interplanetary robot navigation)
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
