On Sep 27, 2008, at 22:54, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Yeah. This is what I'm about to commit. I think it needs to just go with "no strict 'refs'" in each of those blocks (with a comment mentioning "class method"!) and then we'll triage the symbolic ref issue in another go.
Yes. I added the do {} bit just to limit the scope of the `no srict 'refs'` (and included the comment).
http://scratchcomputing.com/tmp/Base.pm.extract_accessors.patch
Well, that's irritating. Now I'll have to completely rewrite my patch, because they'll conflict. I wish you wouldn't go changing the code you've asked for volunteers to change after a volunteer has changed it, and force said volunteer to go and rewrite what they just wrote. Honestly, I agree that things could be better, but they could be refactored *after* my patch was applied. This just is not how you encourage people to continue contributing to the project.
Best, David
