|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^3: Strict isn't strict enough (stop it)by tye (Sage)
|on Dec 31, 2011 at 18:02 UTC||Need Help??|
"Don't poke yourself in the eye."
Although the docs you linked to are a bit over-the-top (quite an unfortunate thing in such a core module), they make a good point:
To provide the capability to set/get class-wide settings, it is best instead to provide accessors as subroutines or class methods instead.
The docs said, "Don't do X, do Y instead" and you used them to justify, "Since I can't do X, I'll do W" where "W" is a much worse idea than "X".
What you are doing is equivalent to having public attributes in a class. That makes for pretty bad class design (of course, some people have a hard time even conceiving of class design without the equivalent of public attributes; for example, take a critical look at Moose ;).
I'll let you struggle with whether you should abandon exposing global variables for your interface and replace them with global subroutines instead. There can certainly be advantages to that. But I won't try to scare you into such a decision with over-the-top proclamations. "Trust me". (: