Why would you need that? Wouldn't you usually already know the name of the method when you define it?

• If you just plain define the method, then you give it the name:

  sub foo { warn "foo" } __PACKAGE__->foo();
  [download]

• If you define methods programmatically, you can make them a closure so it knows its name:

  for my $n (qw"foo bar") { *$n = sub { warn $n } } __PACKAGE__->foo();
  [download]

• If you use AUTOLOAD, the name of the method should be in $AUTOLOAD.

  AUTOLOAD { warn $AUTOLOAD } __PACKAGE__->foo();
  [download]

Thanks.
The question is: I could hardcode the method name in the code below instead of using caller, or perhaps Moose offers an easier way to determine the method name being executed. The reasons are the same anyone would need caller in the first place. Maybe I'm looking at this from the caller's perpective and it is the called object's method the one who should introspect the caller's object method?

sub hey {
  &waka(((caller(0))[3]=~m/::(\w+)$/));
}
sub waka {
  my $who = shift;
  print "$who called waka\n";
}
[download]

The only good reason for doing this is error reporting, in which case Carp::cluck() does the job perfectly.

---

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

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

RIP an inspiration; A true Folk's Guy

Moose does not provide any help with getting information out of caller(), that is outside of what I consider Mooses realm of responsibility.

But once you have found the method name, Moose (and the meta layer) can help you find the actual CODE reference, see the Class::MOP::Class docs for more info on that.