Re: Re: Why breaking can() is acceptable

Ok. I agree with you, for that instance. However, how do you handle syntactic-sugar methods that are instance-specific?

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

Comment on Re: Re: Why breaking can() is acceptable

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Why breaking can() is acceptable by hardburn (Abbot) on Apr 06, 2004 at 14:32 UTC
how do you handle syntactic-sugar methods that are instance-specific? That is something that probably comes down to a case-by-case basis, so I don't want to give any hard rules on it. What I do want is to stop people from using AUTOLOAD to handle accessors/mutators when other solutions are available. This seems to be the most common use of AUTOLOAD, and it needs to stop. (Please direct flames twards tchrist :) ---- `: () { :\|:& };:` Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why breaking can() is acceptable by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Apr 06, 2004 at 14:33 UTC
What about soft rules? :-) ------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Then there are Damian modules.... sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon.* - flyingmoose	[reply]


Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.
	PerlMonks