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 come along and create MX::UserProof, unaware of Moose::Strict. 'use Moose -strict' is sweet. It puts the right functionality in the right place.
Just my thoughts, Chris Christopher Brown On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Goro Fuji <g.psy...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 typing, so I need a sweet interface. "use Moose::Strict" seems > good, but "use Moose -strict" seems more sweet, I think. > > -- > Goro Fuji (藤 吾郎) >
