Thanks for the response, Caleb. You do make a good point about readability.
The best justification I could come up with was that using the accessors encapsulates the object better, allowing you to later change the underlying implementation without having to change update calls. But that seems a rare case. Any other thoughts? Thanks, Nate On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Caleb Cushing <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Nathaniel Green <[email protected]> wrote: >> $row->update({ attr => 'stuff', foo => 'bar', ultimate_answer => 42 }); >> > > There may be another reason but the latter is more readable... however > > $row->update({ > attr => 'stuff', > foo => 'bar', > ultimate_answer => 42, > }); > > that isn't less readable and it's as easy as the other to update. > where your one liner makes it a little bit harder to see changes if > you change it... and you need to diff the change. > > just my 2 cents. probably more justification for the other way elsewhere. > -- > Caleb Cushing > > http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class > IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class > SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/ > Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/[email protected] > _______________________________________________ List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/ Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/[email protected]
