Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • To add to all the good comments here, I'd like to add that I'm not using Inside-Out objects, but rather standard hash-ref-based objects, usually with Class::Accessor, (or Class::Accessor::Fast), ADAMK's Object-Tiny [cpan.org], and I've also done some work with Moose. I'm using everything but Moose mostly to get Accessors, and am still probably making little use of the Moose more-advanced features.

    The reason I dislike Inside-Out objects is because I feel that they're too much trouble (like dumping or introspecting them) for too little gain (because I've expereienced very few related problems in hash-ref-OO that Inside-Out objects aim to solve.).

    In Test-Run [cpan.org], which is based on Class-Accessor, the ::Base classes have become somewhat complicated, as I needed more features. I have an implementation of walk-method there, a sequence operation, a pluggable helper class, some abstraction to Text::Sprintf::Named and other things. I probably need to ask the Moose mailing list if there are solutions for all these things in Moose. As I said on IRC, "Every sufficiently Complex Class::Accessor program contains contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Moose.".