http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=342930


in reply to Re: Why breaking can() is acceptable
in thread Why breaking can() is acceptable

Ok. I agree with you, for that instance. However, how do you handle syntactic-sugar methods that are instance-specific?

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

  • Comment on Re: Re: Why breaking can() is acceptable

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Why breaking can() is acceptable
by hardburn (Abbot) on Apr 06, 2004 at 14:32 UTC

    how do you handle syntactic-sugar methods that are instance-specific?

    That is something that probably comes down to a case-by-case basis, so I don't want to give any hard rules on it. What I do want is to stop people from using AUTOLOAD to handle accessors/mutators when other solutions are available. This seems to be the most common use of AUTOLOAD, and it needs to stop. (Please direct flames twards tchrist :)

    ----
    : () { :|:& };:

    Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

[reply]
[d/l]
      What about soft rules? :-)

      ------
      We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

      Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

[reply]

In Section Meditations