Stevan Little wrote:
You can apply roles like this:
with 'Foo';
with 'Bar';
It is not recommended because it will bypass the method conflict
checking, but it does work and is supported.
Interesting. Ok, I'll go that route. Thank you.
OTOH, I think there's going to be another policy added
You can apply roles like this:
with 'Foo';
with 'Bar';
It is not recommended because it will bypass the method conflict
checking, but it does work and is supported.
- Stevan
On Jan 19, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Elliot Shank wrote:
Stevan Little wrote:
This (IMO) is the perfect use case for the h
Stevan Little wrote:
This (IMO) is the perfect use case for the horizontal reuse of roles
because it allows you to inject commonly needed functionality into your
classes without forcing some kind of convoluted inheritance relationship
that does not accurately reflect your domain.
But this is
Oh, then that is easier I think.
Create a simple transformer function, put it into a role and have the
appropriate classes consume it.
This (IMO) is the perfect use case for the horizontal reuse of roles
because it allows you to inject commonly needed functionality into
your classes witho
Stevan Little wrote:
Have you looked at MooseX::MultiInitArg?
That works for assigning specific names to specific attributes, but doesn't address the thing that
I'm going after, which is formulaic. In my case, my BUILDARGS() makes the configuration keys case
insensitive and converts spaces t
On Jan 19, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Elliot Shank wrote:
I've got various classes that I'm initializing based upon hashes
that come from configuration files. The keys that come from the
files don't necessarily match the names of the attributes. Simple
enough-- that's the type of thing that BUILD
I've got various classes that I'm initializing based upon hashes that come from
configuration files. The keys that come from the files don't necessarily match
the names of the attributes. Simple enough-- that's the type of thing that
BUILDARGS() was created for. But the question is how to sh
