On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:18:02 +0100 Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Stosberg wrote: > > As Rhesa proposed, he has followed through and released a plugin to add the > > Devel::Declare / Method::Signatures magic to CGI::Application: > > > > http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?CGI::Application::Plugin::RunmodeDeclare > > Looks like an interesting alternative to CAP::AutoRunmode. One minor > irritant is having to put 'runmode foo ($c:)' everywhere (only if using > $c instead of $self of course). Might be useful to be able to declare > use CGI::Application::Plugin::RunmodeDeclare(invocant => '$c'), or just > use CAP::RunmodeDeclare qw($c). I agree with this sentiment. This brings back to life the discussion we were having on IRC the other day about "$self" vs "$c". I like "$c" because it's shorter and since it's used all over the code base, it's clear enough what it is. And, the first element to 'shift' off of @_ in a method must be the invocant. Michael Peters and Richardo argued in favor of "$self" citing the "Principle of Least Surprise" and the expectation that this non-standard change would generate more harm in confusion than benefits in keystrokes. Although I still prefer "$c" in my own code, I thought they made good points, so I switched back from "$c" to "$self" in the docs and code of the latest CGI::App dev release. But I'm interested in more opinions on the issue. Richard, do you particularlly prefer "$c", or were you mostly following along the docs that were updated to switch from "$self" to "$c" ? Mark -- http://mark.stosberg.com/blog ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
