On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:34:27 +0200, Eric Veith1 wrote: > Peter, >> I suspect you would have an easier time if you wrote what sounds like a >> largish project using Moose and composed in a forkable role. If you > must >> use method attributes there is MooseX::MethodAttributes but (and I am >> getting beyond my experience here) it does not appear popular. > > Hm, what else would you have prefered? Right now I use a r/o attribute > to set up a per-class list of methods that do not fork (actually, more > commands *do* fork than not). Method attributes would have eliminated > some typos. *grin*
You appear to be further along than your original post suggested to me. Well, it's an interesting problem. I've not done much advanced Moose, although I'd like to. You could define a forkable role with before and after hooks to do the forking, but that requires retyping the method names, so I see the appeal of using attributes to label forking methods. Then I wonder about moving all the forkable methods to their own file and using meta to apply the forkability, but I am getting out of my depth. You'd probably benefit from taking this to a Moose list. -- Peter Scott http://www.perlmedic.com/ http://www.perldebugged.com/ http://www.informit.com/store/product.aspx?isbn=0137001274 http://www.oreillyschool.com/courses/perl1/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
