Re: RFC: relative.pm
Hello Aristotle, A. Pagaltzis wrote: Hi Sébastien, * Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-06 03:05]: package BigApp::Report; use relative to_parent = qw(Utils); # loads BigApp::Utils use relative to_self = qw(Create Publish); # loads BigApp::Report::Create, BigApp::Report::Publish I like the idea. Catalyst privately invents something like that, so obviously there are other people who feel the same need. Yes, POE also provide a similar mechanism, that's why I was thinking to provide a generic module to do that. But I like neither the name nor the interface. How about this: package BigApp::Report; use subclass qw(..::Utils Create Publish); # loads BigApp::Utils, BigApp::Report::Create, BigApp::Report::Publish subclass would imply more OO semantic than I'd like, as the module just loads others modules, but I agree it's a better name than relative and I can't find a better one. Also agreeing for the API change. I know I was pondering about using .. but can't remember why I didn't. Thanks -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
Re: RFC: relative.pm
On 6 Oct 2007, at 11:17, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: I like the idea. Catalyst privately invents something like that, so obviously there are other people who feel the same need. Yes, POE also provide a similar mechanism, that's why I was thinking to provide a generic module to do that. But I like neither the name nor the interface. How about this: package BigApp::Report; use subclass qw(..::Utils Create Publish); # loads BigApp::Utils, BigApp::Report::Create, BigApp::Report::Publish subclass would imply more OO semantic than I'd like, as the module just loads others modules, but I agree it's a better name than relative and I can't find a better one. Also agreeing for the API change. I know I was pondering about using .. but can't remember why I didn't. Would it also do use relative [to = 'My::Big::Namespace'] = qw( This That Munger::Fast Munger::Precise ); ? -- Andy Armstrong, Hexten
Re: RFC: relative.pm
Andy Armstrong wrote: But I like neither the name nor the interface. How about this: package BigApp::Report; use subclass qw(..::Utils Create Publish); # loads BigApp::Utils, BigApp::Report::Create, BigApp::Report::Publish subclass would imply more OO semantic than I'd like, as the module just loads others modules, but I agree it's a better name than relative and I can't find a better one. Also agreeing for the API change. I know I was pondering about using .. but can't remember why I didn't. Would it also do use relative [to = 'My::Big::Namespace'] = qw( This That Munger::Fast Munger::Precise ); It can easily do that. The problem is more the name. In this case, use relative to ... works well. But in y original example, use subclass works better. Maybe I should provide both modules then. -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
Re: RFC: relative.pm
On 6 Oct 2007, at 11:46, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: Would it also do use relative [to = 'My::Big::Namespace'] = qw( This That Munger::Fast Munger::Precise ); It can easily do that. The problem is more the name. In this case, use relative to ... works well. But in y original example, use subclass works better. Maybe I should provide both modules then. I always hesitate to suggest Aristotle is mistaken - it's not a common occurrence - but I really think 'subclass' is wrong. As you said this is an extension to the semantics of use that has (I presume) nothing to do with any inheritance relationship the modules may have with each other. I quite like 'relative' to be honest. And I like the idea of the module. I'll use it immediately when you release it, thanks. -- Andy Armstrong, Hexten
Re: RFC: relative.pm
Andy Armstrong wrote: Would it also do use relative [to = 'My::Big::Namespace'] = qw( This That Munger::Fast Munger::Precise ); It can easily do that. The problem is more the name. In this case, use relative to ... works well. But in y original example, use subclass works better. Maybe I should provide both modules then. I always hesitate to suggest Aristotle is mistaken - it's not a common occurrence - but I really think 'subclass' is wrong. As you said this is an extension to the semantics of use that has (I presume) nothing to do with any inheritance relationship the modules may have with each other. Mixing both your and Aristotle's suggestions, here is the new synopsis: package BigApp::Report; use relative qw(Create Publish); # loads BigApp::Report::Create, BigApp::Report::Publish use relative qw(..::Utils); # loads BigApp::Utils use relative to = Enterprise::Framework = qw(Base Factory); # loads Enterprise::Framework:Base, Enterprise::Framework::Factory I quite like 'relative' to be honest. And I like the idea of the module. I'll use it immediately when you release it, thanks. Heh, thanks. I'll announce here when the module is available. -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
Re: RFC: relative.pm
On 10/6/07, Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always hesitate to suggest Aristotle is mistaken - it's not a common occurrence - but I really think 'subclass' is wrong. As you said this is an extension to the semantics of use that has (I presume) nothing to do with any inheritance relationship the modules may have with each other. ++ I quite like 'relative' to be honest. And I like the idea of the module. I'll use it immediately when you release it, thanks. I agree with relative vs subclass -- and it does seem to be a very useful module for anything with many classes and subclasses. David
Re: relative.pm
Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni schreef: package BigApp::Report; These would also be nice: package BigApp::__FROMFILE__; package BigApp::__FROMFILE__($RCSfile); -- Affijn, Ruud Gewoon is een tijger.
Moving a module to another distribution
We're thinking about promoting one of the Perl::Critic::More policies to the core Perl::Critic distribution. As long as the version number increases and PAUSE permissions are OK that should be fine, right? http://search.cpan.org/perldoc? Perl::Critic::Policy::ValuesAndExpressions::ProhibitMagicNumbers Chris
Fwd: CPAN Upload: S/SA/SAPER/relative-0.01.tar.gz
Hello, relative.pm is now available on the CPAN. Thanks to Aristotle and Andy for their suggestions. For people who care about this, it even works on Perl 5.004 Forwarded message: From: PAUSE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6 octobre 2007 18:39:45 HAEC To: Sebastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CPAN Upload: S/SA/SAPER/relative-0.01.tar.gz The uploaded file relative-0.01.tar.gz has entered CPAN as file: $CPAN/authors/id/S/SA/SAPER/relative-0.01.tar.gz size: 3962 bytes md5: 1127c3c21734e2ffd12bff036b944581 No action is required on your part Request entered by: SAPER (Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni) Request entered on: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:38:50 GMT Request completed: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:39:45 GMT Thanks, -- paused, v929 -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
Re: RFC: relative.pm
On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: The interest of such a module would be to ease writing modules using a big set of sibling modules (in the same hierarchy), and would also simplify refactoring and renaming. As of now the user still has to write the whole package later in the code: package BigApp::Report; use relative to_self = qw(Create Publish); my $p = BigApp::Report::Publish-new; If there were a return value from import(), they could do something like this instead: package BigApp::Report; use relative; my $Pub = import relative to_self = qw(Create Publish); my $p = $Pub-new; -Ken
Re: RFC: relative.pm
* Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-06 20:30]: As a side note, using find(1) on a mini-CPAN and Google CodeSearch, I only found 3 modules named tp.pm: Don’t forget the darkPAN though. An acceptable compromise it to write it as C -to = Root That’s what I’d suggest. FWIW, even with the current interface, it’s possible to load a to.pm if you do it this way: use relative to = __PACKAGE __, qw(to from before after boo); But that’s a) noisy b) less than self-suggesting. I’d stick the hyphen on there to avoid that sort of irregularity. It’s a really tiny change anyway. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: RFC: relative.pm
# from A. Pagaltzis # on Saturday 06 October 2007 13:44: Then again, I’d called mine lib::relative. Maybe this one should be pkg::relative? That sounds good. --Eric -- We who cut mere stones must always be envisioning cathedrals. --Quarry worker's creed --- http://scratchcomputing.com ---
Re: Fwd: CPAN Upload: S/SA/SAPER/relative-0.01.tar.gz
Hi Sébastien,
* Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-06 18:55]:
relative.pm is now available on the CPAN.
nit:
--- relative.pm.orig2007-10-06 22:58:22.0 +0200
+++ relative.pm 2007-10-06 22:58:32.0 +0200
@@ -70 +70 @@
-# loads Enterprise::Framework:Base, Enterprise::Framework::Factory
+# loads Enterprise::Framework::Base, Enterprise::Framework::Factory
HTH,
--
*AUTOLOAD=*_;sub _{s/(.*)::(.*)/print$2,(,$\/, )[defined wantarray]/e;$1}
Just-another-Perl-hack;
#Aristotle
Re: RFC: relative.pm
Ken Williams wrote: If there were a return value from import(), they could do something like this instead: package BigApp::Report; use relative; my $Pub = import relative to_self = qw(Create Publish); my $p = $Pub-new; Except that, 1), the API has changed a bit, 2) I think import should return a list in this case because it's importing several modules at once. So would write it like this: package BigApp::Report; use relative; my ($Create, $Publish) = import qw(Create Publish); my publisher = $Publish-new; Looks a good idea. It should also DTRT so my $Publish = import qw(Publish); works as one expects. The only case left is: my $What = import qw(One Two Three); It could return the last one in order to mimic the comma operator. -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
Re: RFC: relative.pm
David Cantrell wrote: Also agreeing for the API change. I know I was pondering about using .. but can't remember why I didn't. '..' is only meaningful in the Unix/Win32 world. VMS, RISC OS and others call it something else. On the other hand, I think it's safe to assume that anyone using those platforms and perl will know what .. means and if they don't I'm sure you'll document it. For best or worse, Unix semantics are pretty common and have contaminated many other things not related to filesystems. Think of URL or XPath[1] for example. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#path-abbrev -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
Re: RFC: relative.pm
A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-06 20:30]: As a side note, using find(1) on a mini-CPAN and Google CodeSearch, I only found 3 modules named tp.pm: Don’t forget the darkPAN though. On a side note, if some people here know Perl modules outside CPAN but available on the internet, I'll gladly accept patches to list them in Module::ThirdParty. An acceptable compromise it to write it as C -to = Root That’s what I’d suggest. FWIW, even with the current interface, it’s possible to load a to.pm if you do it this way: use relative to = __PACKAGE __, qw(to from before after boo); But that’s a) noisy b) less than self-suggesting. I’d stick the hyphen on there to avoid that sort of irregularity. It’s a really tiny change anyway. Ok, ok, you've convinced me :-) Will change this, along with your patch and Ken's idea. -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
Re: relative.pm
Dr.Ruud wrote: Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni schreef: package BigApp::Report; These would also be nice: package BigApp::__FROMFILE__; package BigApp::__FROMFILE__($RCSfile); Not sure how this is supposed to work, but I think this is beyond the aim of relative.pm -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
Re: RFC: relative.pm
On 10/6/07, Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Oct 2007, at 11:46, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: Would it also do use relative [to = 'My::Big::Namespace'] = qw( This That Munger::Fast Munger::Precise ); It can easily do that. The problem is more the name. In this case, use relative to ... works well. But in y original example, use subclass works better. Maybe I should provide both modules then. I always hesitate to suggest Aristotle is mistaken - it's not a common occurrence - but I really think 'subclass' is wrong. As you said this is an extension to the semantics of use that has (I presume) nothing to do with any inheritance relationship the modules may have with each other. I quite agree. I quite like 'relative' to be honest. And I like the idea of the module. I'll use it immediately when you release it, thanks. I think the word relative is correct but lacks context. The only good thing about subclass is that it gives context, but the OO implications are too strong. Maybe some other name that suggests *what* is relative? Would lib::relative be too weird?
Re: RFC: relative.pm
On 10/6/07, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: Also agreeing for the API change. I know I was pondering about using .. but can't remember why I didn't. '..' is only meaningful in the Unix/Win32 world. VMS, RISC OS and others call it something else. On the other hand, I think it's safe to assume that anyone using those platforms and perl will know what .. means and if they don't I'm sure you'll document it. Mac OS X also uses '..' since it's Unix-based. That covers the vast majority of Perl platforms.
