On Nov 11, David Muir Sharnoff wrote:
>
> * In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Muir Sharnoff
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *
> * > *
> * > * Or even better, Hash::ComputedValue ?
> *
> * > Hmmm. The way I think it will be used is mostly to do minor
> * > transformations on values like adding commas to a number eg: 1,000.
> *
> * that's still a computed value, though.
> *
> * > So, how about Hash::Transforms?
> *
> * i don't like that one so much. it is much less clear.
>
> Okay, that one is nixed.
>
> * and, just out of curiousity, what advantage does your module
> * have over a closure? it seems you have to do more work to get
> * the same effect.
>
> How so? I don't use closures that often so maybe I'm missing
> something, but it seems to me that there isn't any similarity
> at all. The purpose of my module is to save a few characters.
>
> Instead of:
>
> sub xyz {
> code
> }
>
> " some string @{[ xyz(abc) ]} "
>
> You have
>
> use my_module;
> tie %xyz, 'my_module',
> sub {
> code
> };
>
> " some string $xyz{abc} "
>
>
> Useful if you're going to want to interpolate a function a lot.
> Worse that useless otherwize.
So, how is yours different from MJD's Interpolation.pm?
- Kurt
