Re^2: Simple Mouse/Moose question

lazy => 1 is unnecessary on "n" (since it doesn't rely on anything), which is why I left out. It may still be useful to leave it on to save memory, though.

The only other difference between our code is that I inlined the default builders. I don't think having to look somewhere else in the file for that code is appropriate.

Comment on Re^2: Simple Mouse/Moose question Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Simple Mouse/Moose question by stvn (Monsignor) on Feb 24, 2011 at 15:26 UTC
lazy => 1 is unnecessary on "n" (since it doesn't rely on anything), which is why I left out. True, the reason i put it in though was mostly future-proofing. It doesn't add much overhead (it really just spread it out actually) and I find that having everything in the dependency chain be lazy just makes things easier to refactor and tweak later on. The only other difference between our code is that I inlined the default builders. I don't think having to look somewhere else in the file for that code is appropriate. Personally I agree, I tend to use default more then I use builder. In fact, I only use builder when I want to easily allow subclassing of the builder method. -stvn	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Simple Mouse/Moose question
by stvn (Monsignor) on Feb 24, 2011 at 15:26 UTC

lazy => 1 is unnecessary on "n" (since it doesn't rely on anything), which is why I left out.

True, the reason i put it in though was mostly future-proofing. It doesn't add much overhead (it really just spread it out actually) and I find that having everything in the dependency chain be lazy just makes things easier to refactor and tweak later on.

The only other difference between our code is that I inlined the default builders. I don't think having to look somewhere else in the file for that code is appropriate.

Personally I agree, I tend to use default more then I use builder. In fact, I only use builder when I want to easily allow subclassing of the builder method.

-stvn

[reply]