The "suggestion" on using subroutine name was facetious, meant to illustrate another example of an inappropriate channel.

Oh, I see. I was reading it while someone was talking to me, so I was a little distracted. That clears it up a bit. Perhaps I will look into having them return information when called a certain way... perhaps using some level of currying... I still hope to use my current plan though, as it just looks better in my opinion.

After all, what would you rather see?

$check->newrule(
   -name => 'myname',  #required, if no element specified, takes this.
   -element => ['one','two'],  #Takes arrayref or string
   -required => 0,      #required has no effect unless the data is omi
+tted altogether.
   -tests => {
      -def => ['array','of','test','names'],
      -custom => [
         sub($$) : modifies { #code },
         sub(@) { #code },
      ],
   }
   );

#Or
$check->newrule(
   -name => 'myname',  #required, if no element specified, takes this.
   -element => ['one','two'],  #Takes arrayref or string
   -required => 0,      #required has no effect unless the data is omi
+tted altogether.
   -tests => {
      -def => ['array','of','test','names'],
      -custom => [
         ctest(
            -args => 2,
            -mod => 1,
            -code => sub { #code },
            ),
         ctest(
            -args => '*',
            -code => sub { #code },
         ),
      ],
   }
   );
[download]



Personally I prefer the first, but I'll admit, the second will probably be easier to implement.



---




My code doesn't have bugs, it just develops random features.

Flame ~ Lead Programmer: GMS (DOWN) | GMS (DOWN)

I prefer the latter. Seeing the former I would think things like "Why is he using a prototype on an anonymous sub when prototypes are completely ignored on those?", "Will a future version of Perl complain or fail for that since it is useless?", etc. (:

                - tye