$self->{RESPONSE} = $self->{UA}->$methodref( $url,
                                             $att{VALUE} ? (Content =>
+ to_json($att{VALUE}))
                                                         : (),
                                           );
[download]

No - I did not mean that.

Your code would require a method NAME, not a subref, which is what I get from "can".

My query was about how to call the subref in an OO-esque way.

        Software efficiency halves every 18 months, thus compensating for Moore's Law.

It works with a sub ref returned from can for me:

#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use feature qw{ say };

{   package My::Url;

    sub new {
        my $class = shift;
        bless {@_}, $class
    }

    sub url {
        my ($self, $node_id) = @_;
        $self->{url} . '?node_id=' .  $node_id
    }
}

my $o = 'My::Url'->new(url => 'http://www.perlmonks.org/');
my $methodname = 'url';
my $methodref = $o->can($methodname);
say $o->$methodref(1142751);
[download]

But even if it didn't, you know the name, right? You used it as the argument to can.

Update: It's documented.

لսႽ† ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ

my $method = $att{METHOD};
$self->{RESPONSE} = $self->{UA}->$method($url, ....);
[download]

Dave.

Yes - I suppose I could 'eval' that, and try to create more friendly dying words.

Perhaps even pre-verify the method name against a valid set - which are hopefully visible via the UA package namespace.

Hmm - ok - more to munge on. Thanks for the suggestion.

        Software efficiency halves every 18 months, thus compensating for Moore's Law.

How about this? :P Time for terse overkill!

    sub do_something_with_a_uri {
        my $self = shift;
        my $uri = shift || die "uri is required";
        my $method = $self->method;
        # You have to work out how to keep the JSON/Env stuff.
        $self->$method($uri);
    }
[download]

And here’s the full working demo code–

*cough* $response->title;

Oh… say… I always assumed title was a Mech provided method. I did not know it was in the underlying LWP stuff. I knew it existed but left it out of the example because of that. Good call-out. :P

Thanks for that extravaganza.

I was trying to keep dependencies to a minimum - this needs to run on a back-level perl (<= 5.8 vintage), in a distributed set of nodes that probably will not have moose.

Thanks for the entertainment.

        Software efficiency halves every 18 months, thus compensating for Moore's Law.

Sure, sure. Moo is not Moose and the usual even you can use the CPAN style rebukes apply. :P Not that I was intending that code to be serious. I do think the code you posted could be organized in a better way. The Moo style points to it but you know the code base so you’ll have to judge what measure is reasonable to apply.