On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> > The more I think of it the more I am convinced that this is not good. If
> > you think $r->pnotes behaves the way it is designed to then let it be so.
> > There is indeed an interface that already does what the new one is
> > intended to do, that is $r->pnotes->{key}=value. Hence, no need for an
> > additional interface.
>
> I'm upset that there is a difference in the two interfaces to pnotes() -
> this just shouldn't be the case at all.
>
> care to add a TODO test to pnotes in the mp2 test suite? that pnotes()
> behaves differently depending on how it's called _needs_ to be fixed imho.
Now, I am a bit puzzled. For months you have convinced me that pnotes()
behaves the way it is designed to. Now that I have given up you out of the
sudden switch hats. Is my English so bad to be not understandable?
Anyway, I'd like to provide these tests if we agree on what the "right"
interface is. Should
a) $r->pnotes(key=>value) behave like $r->pnotes->{key}=value or
b) $r->pnotes->{key}=value behave like $r->pnotes(key=>value)
I would vote for a). That means $r->pnotes(key=>value) is to be changed to
behave like an ordinary Perl hash.
Torsten
pgpoVPouG4pPr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
