Re: RFC: New style for argument check in subs

[Anonymous Monk]

in reply to RFC: New style for argument check in subs

I'm trying to extend Damians PBP advices for unpacking and then checking arguments using the ternary-operator ...

Icky :)

1. to have a concise pattern to replace the (alas) missing sub-signatures in perl

Sub::Signatures, Method::Signatures

2. to be follow DRY practice

Params::Validate?

3. 4. 5. to be parsable for inspection and/or POD-creation and/or IDE-expansion.

??

[LanX]

* Sub::Signatures,

use Filter::Simple ???

are you serious?

* Method::Signatures

use base 'Devel::Declare::MethodInstaller::Simple' ???

are you serious?

* Params::Validate

nice but ...

- overhead by extra sub call

- parameters are unpacked into %p hash, i.e. you need to type $p{x} to access x adn you'll miss all the benefits of compiletime checks for lexicals like my $x.

So any serious arguments other than clicking thru CPAN?

[Anonymous Monk]

use Filter::Simple ??? are you serious?

absolutely, makes things much nicer

use base 'Devel::Declare::MethodInstaller::Simple' ??? are you serious?

absolutely, its for those who want sugar but not source filters -- schwern says its reliable

nice but ... - overhead by extra sub call

HA! are you serous? You can't be serious :)

- parameters are unpacked into %p hash, i.e. you need to type $p{x} to access x

this isn't the only usage, there is validate_pos, and even as Attribute::Params::Validate

and you'll miss all the benefits of compiletime checks for lexicals like my $x.

What compile-time checks?

So any serious arguments other than clicking thru CPAN?

You're looking for arguments about something? About what?

Hey look, these are compile-time :) fields, Hash::Util::lock_keys, Sub::NamedParams

If you're referring to so which pattern do you think is better? to me there really isn't much difference between them -- not that your mission makes sense to me

Even if I'm typing this stuff myself, I'm fine with

defined $pos1 or die "missing arg";
defined $pos2 or $pos2 = 42;

but I wouldn't mix that and  my ($name1,$name2) = @arg{qw/name1 name2/};

I would use a hash or a flatlist

[chip]

Method::Signatures -- yes, I am serious. It's good.

Method::Signatures::Simple -- yes, I am serious again. It's still good.

The computer can handle working harder. You can't.

[LanX]

I don't deny it's good, but I have serious problems with such dependencies.

If it' so good make it core and I'll use it as soon as Debian supports the perlversion.

In the meantime I like a good style which works w/o XS dependencies.