On Mar 4, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Karen Etheridge wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:52:56PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
Now, perhaps a bigger question that one might ask, is why wouldn't
Moose
use MooseX::StrictConstructor's semantics by default?
The main reason I can think of for the current
I have to agree with the above assessment. Tying 'strict' and
'immutability' doesn't make sense. They are orthogonal concepts. And, I am
not a fan of Moose::Strict either. Yet another packages to remember,
separate documentation. If you fork into use Moose and use Moose::Strict,
someone will
hdp:
Strict constructors, on the other hand, can work unchanged regardless of the
metaclass's mutability or lack thereof.
Well, what you said is reasonable. make_immutable(strict_constructor
= 1) is not a good interface.
Internally, $pkg-meta-strict(1) is the best, but it requires too
much
http://github.com/gfx/moose/commits/topic/strict-constructor2
I have implemented use Moose -strict command. How about it?
--
Goro Fuji (藤 吾郎)
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, Goro Fuji wrote:
http://github.com/gfx/moose/commits/topic/strict-constructor2
I have implemented use Moose -strict command. How about it?
I really wish you'd use the Moose repo like everyone else. It makes it a
lot easier for me to review your code that way, and
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 15:21, Dave Rolsky auta...@urth.org wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, Goro Fuji wrote:
http://github.com/gfx/moose/commits/topic/strict-constructor2
I have implemented use Moose -strict command. How about it?
I really wish you'd use the Moose repo like everyone else. It
Hello,
Use Moose -strict looks very unusual. Why not something more usual for Perl
like use Moose::Strict?
-Original Message-
From: Goro Fuji [mailto:g.psy...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:47 AM
To: Dave Rolsky; Moose ML
Subject: Re: A branch to review: topic/strict
Dave:
I really wish you'd use the Moose repo like everyone else. It makes it
a lot easier for me to review your code that way, and probably for
others who aren't too git-savvy.
Oh, sorry. I forked it from force of habit.
Well, let's get back to the subject.
Although I implemented the
Excerpts from Goro Fuji's message of Sun Feb 28 21:09:29 -0500 2010:
Dave said that constructor strictness should not be tied to immutability, but
I don't think so. This is because existing options to make_immutable, namely
constructor_name and inline_construcotr, etc., are irrelevant to
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 02:35, Hans Dieter Pearcey h...@pobox.com wrote:
I have to side with Dave on this one.
Yeah on one hand the -import() namespace is being polluted and on the
other hand meta-make_immutable() is being used to do something not
relating to immutability.
If it's going to be
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Goro Fuji wrote:
I really don't think this feature should be tied into immutability. The
existing MX module works regardless of whether or not the class is made
immutable.
What interface do you like?
I'm not really sure. I just know that this shouldn't be tied to
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Goro Fuji wrote:
The strict constructor is enabled by the 'strict_constructor' option
of make_immutable:
__PACKAGE__-meta-make_immutable(strict_constructor = 1);
I really don't think this feature should be tied into immutability. The
existing MX module works regardless
Hi, all.
I have created a branch topic/strict-constructor, which does what
MooseX::StrictConstructor. I think strict constructor is as useful as
strict.pm,
so I wonder why Moose core doesn't support it alghough
MX::StrictConstructor is recommended by the docs. I think one problem
is the
13 matches
Mail list logo
