On Sep 27, 2008, at 21:59, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Could we have that with the original indentation please?
Which is what? I can't make heads or tails of it.
Ack. I should have said "without the 32-line ternary". Please. I'm
all for refactoring, but some of that should really come in more than
one piece.
Ah, so you *were* able to read some of the patch, eh? ;-) I'm fine to
change the ternary, it's a dead simple change.
Otherwise it is very difficult to review.
I somehow doubt that the ternary made it difficult to review. When I
change it, it will be very nearly identical.
I think this needs to seek "one of the other ways to do it":
# Allow to work in class or object context.
my $x = do { no strict 'refs'; $self->{properties} };
return $x->{$property} unless @_;
Oh, big time. But that was how I got the tests to pass. I have no idea
why properties need to work in a class context.
When you have two 'it's, one of them should have a name
for (reverse shift->_mb_classes) {
@out{ keys %{ $valid_properties{$_} } } = map {
$_->()
} values %{ $valid_properties{$_} };
}
Every used a Schwartzian transform?
But, I have doubts about the "everything is a sub" approach here. If
the default is a subref, that implies that we always call it (e.g.
creating a new anonymous ref ala moose) rather than ever holding the
value -- and if that were the case then valid_properties_defaults()
would not exist? That is, take a look at _set_defaults().
I don't follow you here. What I wanted was an easy way for a class to
define a default at runtime. It's just a simple thing; if people hate
it, I can remove it.
Best,
David
