in reply to Re^2: Class::MethodMaker, workplace politics, and patches
in thread Class::MethodMaker, workplace politics, and patches

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:

  • "If I've reset() an attribute and not yet done a get() or set(), why does it test as isset()?"

    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.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks.
    Silence betokens consent.
    Love the truth but pardon error.

    • In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom