Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change

Re^3: Safer monkey-patching

by JavaFan (Canon)
on Jan 19, 2012 at 10:58 UTC ( #948756=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: Safer monkey-patching
in thread Safer monkey-patching

Redefining a function only produces a warning if "use warnings" is in effect. So classic monkey patching will not necessarily produce compile-time warnings.
Are you serious? You consider that a reasonable argument? "You shouldn't monkey patch because you may not get a warning on a name clash if you don't enable warnings"?

I'm pretty sure that anyone who knows how to monkey patch knows about warnings.

If a conflict warning is desired, that's fairly easy to add in with my method...
Goody. Additional scaffolding, and you still aren't any further than what can be achieved with monkey-patching.

Assuming Example::Error doesn't use AUTOLOAD to implement asplode (heh, if you want to consider monkey patchers that don't enable warnings, I will consider AUTOLOAD), it still doesn't solve anything. Once Example::Error implements asplode, you get a warning, and where your code expects to call your asplode, it calls Example::Error::asplode. Ergo, you haven't solved anything. It isn't safer than monkey-patching. With the extra scaffolding, it isn't unsafer either.

Comment on Re^3: Safer monkey-patching
Select or Download Code

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://948756]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2015-10-10 11:12 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    Does Humor Belong in Programming?

    Results (255 votes), past polls