On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:54:08PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: > My only issue with this is that methods are not really parts of > packages, methods are class things. Perhaps we could call it > code_ref_map or something better so we can get the actual functionality, > and then Role and Class can just alias them to method_mao or something > like that?
The only reason I didn't do this is because every consumer of this API (CMOP::Class, Moose::Role) cares about methods, not 'subroutines', so it seemed like drawing a distinction that, while valid, would be currently useless. If the plan is for CMOP::Package to grow more extensive exporting/inclusion functionality, I could see more value. It still may make sense for an intermediate module that is "a package containing subs intended to be called as methods", but I have no idea what that would be called. hdp.
