Perl is interpreted. If you choose not to see the big distinction between those operations that are required for the operation of the language, and those (like UNIVERSAL::ISA and UNIVERSAL::can), that are not, then you're conducting an entirely different discussion to the one I set out to have.
If you blessed (or tied) all your hashes, arrays and scalars, and provided clone() methods in each of those packages, then no introspection (in the sense of application programmer explicitly coded type-based dispatching), is required.
Before you counter argue further, please think about why I might have asked the question I asked. Think about which side of this argument I might normally hang my hat. And think about why I might have phrased the premise in the way I did.
It's unfortunate that you taken the stance you have because it means that I will now not get the responses I had hoped for. Ie. Real examples of how people are using explicit, programmmer driven, class-based introspection, in Perl. Ie. The very sort of stuff that Moose provides for. Ie. The very use cases that make the case for using Moose in the first place.
In reply to Re^4: Runtime introspection: What good is it?
by BrowserUk
in thread Runtime introspection: What good is it?
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |