Re^2: Why "no Moose?"

Moose is also a source filter, so (as with all filters of non-Lisp languages) it's probably best to turn it off when you don't actually need it.

UPDATE: That's completely wrong; I'm sorry. See kyle's post below.
UPDATE 2: No, really, I know now. Further down-voting will not convince me any more. :-)

Comment on Re^2: Why "no Moose?"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Why "no Moose?" by kyle (Abbot) on Jan 27, 2009 at 20:53 UTC
"Moose is not and has never been a source filter"	[reply]
Re^4: Why "no Moose?" by JadeNB (Chaplain) on Jan 27, 2009 at 20:59 UTC
Surely that statement requires a precise definition of ‘source filter’? I'm no expert on Moose internals, but it's got a dependency on Filter::Simple.	[reply]
Re^5: Why "no Moose?" by kyle (Abbot) on Jan 27, 2009 at 21:08 UTC
Filter::Simple is only used by oose, which is "syntactic sugar to make Moose one-liners easier". The Moose you'd use for modules and applications is not a source filter.	[reply]
Re^6: Why "no Moose?" by JadeNB (Chaplain) on Jan 27, 2009 at 22:14 UTC
Re^7: Why "no Moose?" by kyle (Abbot) on Jan 27, 2009 at 22:25 UTC