On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:43:28PM -0500, Caleb Cushing wrote:
a while back I wrote a piece of code that was basically a generic
equals method for objects. I'm wondering if I patched moose to give
objects this functionality if it'd be accepted?
I would lean towards providing this via an
Might it be better simply to name the class what it does, and have its
moosey-ness go unnamed? Imagine if we started naming things OO:: when
we started using classes, and never stopped.
On 6/8/2013 3:47 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:
so at YAPC it was again mentioned that you shouldn't use MooseX for
I second Reverend Chip's comment. Too much what its implemented with rather
than what it does among module names. -- Darren Duncan
On 2013.06.09 8:26 PM, Reverend Chip wrote:
Might it be better simply to name the class what it does, and have its
moosey-ness go unnamed? Imagine if we started
