Re: DWIM code would use Params::Validate (overengineered)

You seem to be a big fan of software (over)engineering. As I've only seen overengineered solutions, maybe you can show an example where the code using Params::Validate is shorter and/or more concise or even more readable than the solutions already presented. The synopsis of Params::Validate only shows verbose "solutions" spanning at least five or six lines.

Comment on Re: DWIM code would use Params::Validate (overengineered)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: DWIM code would use Params::Validate (overengineered) by metaperl (Curate) on Apr 30, 2010 at 13:40 UTC
Yes, I am a big fan of software engineering. I cant show code that is more concise, but code with P::V (or remember --- newer related module) will be more definitional and you will be able to validate parameters on sub after sub after sub without all of the fiddly error-prone business I've been observing in this thread. My forehead is flatter now from all the times I've smacked myself int he head going: "why god why? wtf?! what are these people thinking????" (lol). What are some newer solutions to the same problem as P::V? The mantra of every experienced web application developer is the same: thou shalt separate business logic from display. Ironically, almost all template engines allow violation of this separation principle, which is the very impetus for HTML template engine development. -- Terence Parr, "Enforcing Strict Model View Separation in Template Engines"	[reply]
Re^3: DWIM code would use Params::Validate (overengineered) by Corion (Patriarch) on Apr 30, 2010 at 13:55 UTC
I'm not sure what problem P::V solves, so I'm not sure how it is applicable here. You also couldn't show how it is applicable here, so maybe we should wait for somebody to show how it is applicable here.	[reply]