|No such thing as a small change|
Id like to point out that this doesn't scale very well. Sure you have a valid point in a limited case, such as when there are only a few relevent states. But what happens when there are lots? Or the system is dynamic? Or if you want to say things like
I'd rather write the above than call a bunch of methods, let alone write the methods in the first place. :-)
I thinks its unlikely I would write an object that require on a regular basis the double indirection like that. And if I did face a situation like my example above I'd probably do something more like
The issue here for me is that the use of 'Pending' isn't wrong, its the use of 'Pending' in such a way that I can't intercept that usage that is wrong. The subs above allow use to redefine the back end behaviour just as yours does, but its a lot more flexible an approach, while still providing us a way to block inapropriate checks. For instance $status->is('Pneding') should produce an error. Albeit a run time one. Oh well you cant have everything can you? :-)
Anyway, I use both styles as seems appropriate for the task at hand, often both at the same time even. :-)
<Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...
In reply to Re: Short Refactoring Tip: let the object do it for you