Re: Passing by Named Parameter

Params::Validate has most of what you're looking for. I looked into it and it could do with some strengthening, but it's an excellent start. (I didn't end up using it because I refactored to less-comprehensive function signatures, but that was a design question - I didn't really need it.)

Updated as per ysth's reply

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

Comment on Re: Passing by Named Parameter

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Passing by Named Parameter by ysth (Canon) on Jan 26, 2004 at 23:44 UTC
I think you mean Params::Validate	[reply]
Re: Re: Passing by Named Parameter by autarch (Hermit) on Jan 27, 2004 at 06:04 UTC
I looked into it and it could do with some strengthening, but it's an excellent start. Specific suggestions and/or patches should be sent to the module author (cough).	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Passing by Named Parameter by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Jan 27, 2004 at 16:46 UTC
I think I'll take a close look at it. As for suggestions, I see that it has dependant parameters but not mutually-exclusive parameters. I wanted to get some replies before I put any effort into re-inventing anything, but my musings indicate that some possible features can be order-dependant, which is a problem with the use of a hash for a prototype. I'm also worried about slowing it down if it's too fancy! —John	[reply]