My beef with for (which I like a lot) in this case is that it necessitates weaving calls against different objects into a single block..

I can see why people are saying the syntax C::P::MC produces looks more opaque. I think it's a matter of getting used to, and one of style.

I was discussing this with Juerd yesterday. He made the point that once you set up a method to return $self natively, you can never again change that method to return something else should the need arise in future. That sounded like a very good argument to me, and I countered that intentionally outsourcing method chaining to something like C::P::MC instead of doing it natively would actually allow anyone to choose which style they prefer, for any class, at any one moment, to which he agreed. We also agreed that it's mostly a matter of style and taste - he said chaining didn't really appeal to him.

So I guess this is really a matter of just going ahead and waiting for feedback from people who (try to) use it.

Makeshifts last the longest.