even if moose is nice and allows to prune a lot of code, it can still be seen as cryptic. take the following example, and imagine that you have a lot more attributes to declare:
the first thing that can be done is using moose builtin types instead of their name, with moosex::types::moose. this allows to remove the quotes around the types:
but that's still a bit mouthful. enters moosex::has::sugar, for a nicer code:
your code is now more readable - yet some other modules that i'll now use in my dists...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I use qw to declare lot of moose things:
ReplyDeletepackage Human;
use Moose;
has Firstname => qw< isa Str is rw required 1 lazy_build 1 > ;
hth
@marc: not recommended by moose folks... and it's still mouthfull.
ReplyDeleteI would say Uglying Moose and making things more Complex.
ReplyDeleteIn the first Version you just have simple key=>value that everybode knews.
The second version has absolutly no benefit over the first.
And in the third version you left key=>value assignment that can produce more confusion then solve confusion.
@sidburn22: i guess that's in the eye of the beholder. i happen to like it, and find it really easier to read, which is why i shared it here. but you're in no way forced to use it...
ReplyDelete