Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?

Re: Should MooseX::StrictConstructor be part of Moose itself?

by einhverfr (Friar)
on Nov 17, 2013 at 12:48 UTC ( #1062990=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Should MooseX::StrictConstructor be part of Moose itself?

I don't know. The current status quo makes it very easy to "glue" different layers of code together assuming certain contracts, and allow those contracts to be extensible later on (handling optional extensions if one wants).

Now, "easy glue" has a number of traps, but opting into the status quo today would make my life a lot harder. For example there are times where I want to say "given this data structure, take the relevant subset and create an object from it" and Moose is currently very good at doing that. Moreover if Moo were to adopt this behavior too, I would have to write additional constructors for handling that case on every class.

As I see it, Moose has a large number of ways of ensuring a flexible yet robust software contract besides this. You have type constraints, required attributes, and more. Since these are remarkably helpful I don't see why this should be the default behavior.

  • Comment on Re: Should MooseX::StrictConstructor be part of Moose itself?

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1062990]
[marto]: fortunately my bad jokes and puns don't fall into those categories :P

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2018-04-26 10:39 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?