I have to say, that having read a bit more about C::MM and how it works, I disagree with teh change you are making.
You question (in the tests) is:
And I would say, because it has a default.
Therefore if you did do a get(), a value would be returned, and that value would be a real value--even if it was undef because the default was set to be undef.
So, the envisioned use of _isset is to allow the caller to determine if they will get a legitimate value when they call get()--even if when they do call it they get undef.
But you appear to be trying to use isset() as if it were isreset(), or possibly _isdefault().
Which may be a desirable test to be able to perform for some reason other than testing that _reset() works--which is C::MM's test suite responsibility, not yours--but if it is, then it has different semantics to _isset and should probably be a different method.
In reply to Re^3: Class::MethodMaker, workplace politics, and patches
by BrowserUk
in thread Class::MethodMaker, workplace politics, and patches
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |