On 17 Dec 2008, at 08:07, Christopher Brown wrote:
<snip>
_1_
The naive way is using normal attributes in standard roles. This
is simple
and straightforward. But implementing attributes this way, limits
one to
hardcoded attribute names and definitions. For example, if a role
defines
an attribute as 'rw', you could not easily specify it as 'ro' and
not before
it was already installed. The limitations of this approach is clear.
I'm using this technique in a few places, and I do some overriding
using the has '+attrname' syntax.
It works well enough for my current use-case, but as you note has
several disadvantages, and I can see a need for something more flexible.
_3_
Another method would be to rewrite/overload/intercept the has
subroutine. I
haven't thought about the entire ramifications or complications
here. But
this is likely the best way to handle this.
I'm not sure that I'm in favour of the syntax that you propose,
however I wouldn't have a definite opinion until I could play with
something..
I would appreciate your thoughts,
I'd certainly be prepared to spend some time playing with and giving
you feedback on a MooseX module which implemented a prototype of the
feature.
Cheers
t0m
