Re^7: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see?

"feel free to ignore mine"

au contraire! Your solution is identical ... down to the hashref slice and the lack of parameter checking (allowing DBI to raise whatever its exception is). I upvoted your post too and I'm pleased to see it, not least because it makes me more confident my suggested approach was a good one. Keep posting!

The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

Comment on Re^7: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see? by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 16, 2019 at 07:32 UTC
Thank you both for this example! I think it will help me move much of this kind of stuff away from accessors. Now that you have mentioned this, I seem to remember something similar being mentioned in that talk, but only as "What he really wants are coercions", but that mention wasn't made loud or raised for discussion. In any case, your posts showed me how Moo* wants to be used for building nicer constructors and how I can eliminate the bad part of my constructors without resorting to the real manual parsing of the constructor arguments again.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^8: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see?
by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 16, 2019 at 07:32 UTC

Thank you both for this example! I think it will help me move much of this kind of stuff away from accessors.

Now that you have mentioned this, I seem to remember something similar being mentioned in that talk, but only as "What he really wants are coercions", but that mention wasn't made loud or raised for discussion. In any case, your posts showed me how Moo* wants to be used for building nicer constructors and how I can eliminate the bad part of my constructors without resorting to the real manual parsing of the constructor arguments again.

[reply]