in reply to Re^3: custom attribute? (wrong channel)
in thread custom attribute?

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)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: custom attribute? (wrong channel)
by tye (Sage) on Jan 29, 2003 at 01:33 UTC

    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
[reply]
      Well for now I'll go with the currying solution for now... but I still hope to eventually get the smaller (at least for me) solution working. This is the currying sub I've decided to use (or at least variations on this): 
      sub ctest {
   _self(@_); #Eliminate any object that may be in the args
   my %opts = @_;
   unless(defined($opts{'code'}) && ref($opts{'code'}) eq 'CODEREF'){
      return ERROR;
   }
   unless(defined($opts{'mod'})){
      $opts{'mod'} = 0;
   }
   return sub {
      #Retun useage info if called without args
      return [$opts{'args'},$opts{'mod'}] if(!@_);
      $opts{'code'}->(@_);
   }
}

#Used as:

my $coderef = ctest(
   args => 3,
   code => sub { return 1 if(int($_[0]) == $_[0]); return; }
);

$coderef->(4.23);

      [download]



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

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

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom