On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:43:04PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:09, jesse wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "person writing the
> > program" and "person writing the libraries." In fact, I've _gotta_
> > be. I'd like to be able to put my strictures in a library rather than
> > forcing them into the main body of a program. Are you saying
> > you don't want to let people do this?
>
> Let me rephrase. Libraries and modules can be as strict or as lax as they
> like, but the program *using* those libraries and modules should always be
> able to override those strictures. If you write a class in a library and
> declare it as closed, that's fine -- but any program that uses the class
> should always have the option of saying "Nope, not closed. I need to do
> something with it."
>
> It's the person *using* the libraries and modules and classes who knows how
> strict they need to be, how closed they need to be, and how optimized they
> need to be. If any of those policies are irreversible--if they leak out of
> libraries and modules and classes--then there is a problem.
Ok. So, I think what you're saying is that it's not a matter of "don't let
people write libraries that add strictures to code that uses those modules"
but a matter of "perl should always give you enough rope to turn off any
stricture imposed on you by external code."
Do I have that right?
>
> -- c
>
--
