use Perl

• I think that's a good compromise (Score:1)

  by xsawyerx (8978)

  I would prefer to have warnings for possible problems that you would only run into by accident. If you would not want that to happen, you could just declare so.

  What's Rolsky's position on the subject, If I may ask?
  • Re: (Score:2)

    by Ovid (2709)

    I don't know how Dave feels, but Stevan Little has already said "no". He prefers new features to be tested in a MooseX:: class and that makes sense to me.
    • Re:I think that's a good compromise (Score:1)

      by Stevan (6065) <reversethis-{moc ... {elttil.navets}> on 2009.04.28 12:32 (#68342) Journal

      Actually, I said no to the idea of:

      with 'Role::Serializable' => { includes => [] };

      meaning "don't compose any methods, but i still want to do this role", because I think that it is not very clear and could very easily be confusing to people. After all you would never say:

      with 'Role::Serializable' => { excludes => [] };

      it just wouldn't make sense. I just really never liked APIs where the lack of something was significantly meaningful.

      Now, all that said, I actually really kind of like:

      with 'Role::Serializable' => { includes => [ 'to_xml' ] };

      because it is clear and obvious and pretty useful. In fact, if you had proposed this originally, and not tied it to the includes => [] being a shortcut to a "interface" type role, I would probably have said "go for it".

      In fact, I would be happy to accept a fork (no more patches now that we are on git) which implemented includes => [ 'to_xml' ] (along with tests and docs of course) as long as it didn't do the "interface" role shortcut thing.

      - Stevan

      Reply to This

      Parent