UNIVERSAL::DOES() seems like the perfect place to roll them all together into something sensible.
Do you really expect us to say UNIVERSAL::DOES everwhere?
Do you plan to allow the export of DOES despite the many places where UNIVERSAL claims it's a mistake to have import at all?
What if there's a package wants to use the DOES function *and* override DOES?
Wouldn't it be better if your function was called does. If the argument is a class or an object, it would call the DOES method to permit overrides and roles.
In reply to Re^5: I don't understand UNIVERSAL::DOES()
by ikegami
in thread I don't understand UNIVERSAL::DOES()
by rlb3
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |