No such thing as a small change | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Well pobocks, you're right, I guess having eyes attached to legs is not the best example. But basically I was just trying to exemplify the adding of parts to a body, then accessing those parts in any order with a single $body object instance. The package SOAP::Lite is a perfect example of stacking calls, even though I seldom use that kind of design.
stvn, I think "subclasses" could be the right word, given eyes are a body-part and inherit the 'blood pressure' attribute from the body, even though they could be implemented as inner classes as well. But definitely currying is not what I meant, so I take it back. Anyway, I came to this question while prototyping proof-of-concept code in Moose, starting with object usage in the final code and a simple does-it all class. I was researching a way to represent a DOM-like objects quickly without so many subtypes and with as little keystrokes as possible. I didn't know yet where all the pieces would fall, so I might write the eyes code before I have a head or a leg for that matter. So this is not about my app design, which I've just started. It's that I really enjoy brainstorming with Moose, so after writing up around 20 lines of candidate has attributes, I saw myself writing another 20 arounds and, as a lazy programmer that I am, I was asking myself if I was missing something, on the lines of:
I'm glad to hear the Moose team is looking into that. At the end of the road, I'm just trying to replace my old style of prototyping with a big & ugly sub AUTOLOAD { ... } directive with something a little more readable and extensible, just in case the prototype prospers. In reply to Re: curried-up moose
by rodd
|
|