in reply to Moose::Util::TypeConstraints - Querying subtype() Caveat

Looks like a misunderstanding of the problem of indirect object, and definitely not a demonstration

Its amazing to see it go back all the way to http://search.cpan.org/~stevan/Moose-0.10/lib/Moose/Util/TypeConstraints.pm#Slightly_Less_Important_Caveat

See 2001 indirect object in camel book , Unconfuse filehandles and classes, Indirect object syntax (RE: Beginnings of Online CGI Course), Why was indirect object syntax inferred here?o

  • Comment on Re: Moose::Util::TypeConstraints - Querying subtype() Caveat

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Moose::Util::TypeConstraints - Querying subtype() Caveat
by kcott (Archbishop) on Jul 20, 2012 at 12:06 UTC

    Thanks for your response.

    It sounds like you also think this could be a documentation error. Thanks for digging up the original doco: I wouldn't necessarily assume a misunderstanding, it could simply be a typo.

    Re "See 2001 ...": unless you're merely indicating that indirect object syntax has been misunderstood for a long time, the significance of the 2001 links eludes me. (The 3rd link is actually 2000, if that's important.) The eariest version of Moose on CPAN (Moose 0.10), referenced in your second paragraph, is dated 05 Jul 2006.

    -- Ken

[reply]

      Re "See 2001 ..." ... the significance of the 2001 links eludes me.

      Well, it was just link to explain about indirect object pitfall for anyone interested, the "2001" isn't important, I just found it curious, and it slipped into my post :)

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom