in reply to Re^9: Moose and caller() for current method
in thread Moose and caller() for current method
How does that sit with your take on lexical file handles?
All things being equal, the principle of distinction is useful.
All things are not equal in this case, especially considering issues of global variables and the complexity of localization versus automatic scope destruction and RAII. What should they look like, and what leads you to believe that the addition of lexical filehandles to Perl 5.6 violated the principle of distinction?
What is "ugly" about two colons?
The asymmetry of Package::Name:: and its virtual unuse.
And we're back to making everything look the same.
Do yourself the favor of reading the rest of the chapter, especially the explanation of why indirect object notation is unreliable.
You've lost sight of what makes Perl so productive. Of what makes Perl, Perl.
I find it difficult to believe that Perl's productivity comes from the wanton use of global variables and syntactic constructs with parsing ambiguity.
... my expression, of my reservations of your opinions: "libellous"?
Easy! If you were to write "I think your advice is silly," that's obviously your opinion. If, instead, you write "Your intent is merely to make everyone write code your capricious way for no obvious reason," you've produced libel. (Update: Note the use of the subjunctive mood in this paragraph.)
You may have the last word in this thread, as usual.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^11: Moose and caller() for current method
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 14, 2010 at 16:11 UTC |