Re^3: Perl Elitist Code vs Functional Code

in reply to Re^2: Perl Elitist Code vs Functional Code
in thread Perl Elitist Code vs Functional Code

closures really?

I'd rather use die/croak and a something like Catalyst::Plugin::ErrorCatcher

Comment on Re^3: Perl Elitist Code vs Functional Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Perl Elitist Code vs Functional Code by tobyink (Canon) on Aug 13, 2012 at 05:59 UTC
Yes, closures are how Sub::Exporter works. Moose uses Sub::Exporter under the hood to export its `has`, `extends`, etc keywords. `has`, `extends`, etc are all closures. Catalyst is Moose-based. You use Catalyst; you're using closures. Catalyst is Plack-based. Plack is an implementation of the PSGI spec. Under PSGI all web apps are closures. You use Catalyst; you're using closures. `perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'`	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Perl Elitist Code vs Functional Code
by tobyink (Canon) on Aug 13, 2012 at 05:59 UTC

Yes, closures are how Sub::Exporter works. Moose uses Sub::Exporter under the hood to export its has, extends, etc keywords. has, extends, etc are all closures. Catalyst is Moose-based. You use Catalyst; you're using closures.

Catalyst is Plack-based. Plack is an implementation of the PSGI spec. Under PSGI all web apps are closures. You use Catalyst; you're using closures.

perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom