Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
XP is just a number

Re: Which Signatures module to use (with Moose and Moo)?

by stvn (Monsignor)
on Jul 18, 2011 at 01:48 UTC ( #915051=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Which Signatures module to use (with Moose and Moo)?

what is the "standard" Signatures library on CPAN today?

There is none, all of them have their benefits and drawbacks. For the record, the Moose community has no preference. And MooseX::Method::Signatures is part of MooseX::Declare which is still considered an "experiment" by many (including much of the Moose core dev team).

So I'm trying out Moo, which I saw used on CPAN.

Do not let a few brave souls lead you to believe that Moo is a not still highly experimental. I would be very wary of deploying something so young as Moo, I would lead more towards the pure-perl version of Mouse which is much more mature.

  • Comment on Re: Which Signatures module to use (with Moose and Moo)?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Which Signatures module to use (with Moose and Moo)?
by BerntB (Deacon) on Jul 18, 2011 at 02:07 UTC

    Thanks for the answer. I will go with Method::Signatures::Simple in the end. (I would have liked signatures for functions.) Now I just need to see if someone has updated CPerl mode in Emacs (edit: to recognize the 'method' instead of just 'sub').

    Re Moo -- I am writing a hobby hack; a bit experimental sounds OK. :-) Also, if there are problems -- as far as I can tell, it should be quite easy to switch to Moose/Mouse.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://915051]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (4)
As of 2017-07-23 07:17 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    I came, I saw, I ...

    Results (345 votes). Check out past polls.