On Monday, May 6, 2013 9:22:36 PM UTC-4, Ygor wrote:
This looks great.
Mine, or Gerardo's?
Some constructive criticism:
I think “defaults and “settings” are redundant.
Use one.
Actually, though, IMHO they're not. 'Defaults' are what you get if they
aren't overridden. 'Settings' are
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:02:11 AM UTC-4, Wolf Noble wrote:
I'm happy to give my $.02, FWIW.
I've found immense benefit from the overall paradigm described in Craig
Dunn's blog post here:
http://www.craigdunn.org/2012/05/239/
I'll check it out in light of your comments. Thanks!
--
I've been having to write (and modify) a lot of modules lately, and I've so
far moved to the following pattern. I'd appreciate comments and feedback
about my approach, particularly in light of the changes to name scoping
(all my modules are currently deployed under 2.7).
1. mod::defaults
This looks great.
Some constructive criticism:
I think “defaults and “settings” are redundant.
Use one.
I kind of like the term “params”, but they all do the same thing.
On May 6, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Ken Coar wrote:
I've been having to write (and modify) a lot of modules lately, and I've so
Hi Ken,
I'm happy to give my $.02, FWIW.
I've found immense benefit from the overall paradigm described in Craig
Dunn's blog post here:
http://www.craigdunn.org/2012/05/239/
That paradigm, combined with modules which have all of their variables
placed as module::variable_name parameters which
