No, it certainly isn't clean. Neither is Perl's API! Lincoln
Matt Sergeant writes: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tatsuhiko Miyagawa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:58:39 -0000 > > Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I guess so. Your above is equivalent to: > > > > > > $r->param(foo => 'a', b => 'c'); > > > > > > (foo => qw(a b c)) doesn't do what it looks like it does, > > and that's a bad > > > thing. > > > > I know! but CGI.pm does it, so what I want is interface > > consistency. CGI.pm also has a named parameter style which > > Apache::Request doesn't support, like > > > > $q->param(-name => 'foo', -value => [ qw(a b c) ]); > > print join '/', $q->param('foo'); # a/b/c > > Well, as a libapreq developer, I'd say -1 to the above. I'm not that worried > about consistency - it's not like they advertise as being the same (the > wording in the README is "lighter and faster alternative"). For me the > CGI.pm API isn't clean (sorry Lincoln :-) > > Matt. > > _____________________________________________________________________ > This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet > delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further > information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call > Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. -- ======================================================================== Lincoln D. Stein Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cold Spring Harbor, NY NOW HIRING BIOINFORMATICS POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS AND PROGRAMMERS. PLEASE WRITE FOR DETAILS. ========================================================================
