On Sat Jan 14 14:28:33 2017, ETHER wrote:
Show quoted text> On 2017-01-14 03:03:00, STEVAN wrote:
> > On Fri Jan 13 18:07:35 2017, ETHER wrote:
> > > > SEE ALSO
> > > >
> > > > Devel::BeginLift
> > > >
> > > > This does a similar thing, but does it via "some slightly insane
> > > > perlguts magic", while this module has much the same goals, it will
> > > > (hopefully) accomplish it with less insanity.
> > >
> > > When your code is settled, we can certainly port it back to the
> > > original namespace.
> >
> > I see no need to do that, the old module can remain for those who want
> > it and this new module can happily co-exist with that.
>
> Why have two implementations and clutter up the namespaces?
But, ... clutter is what CPAN is all about ;)
I am not against possibly merging the two, in some way, eventually.
Right now I think it would be ill advised to depend upon Devel::BeginLift as it (and B::Hooks::OP::Check::EntersubForCV) are not looking very healthy on newer perls.
http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=B-Hooks-OP-Check-EntersubForCV+0.09
http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=Devel-BeginLift+0.001003
While I could try and fix that, I am honestly not interested in that distraction at the moment. I would rather stick with my hackish version until such time as I have tuits to revisit this in more depth.
Basically, this module is just a small part of a larger picture, until I finish painting this larger picture, I am fine with the state it is in.
Make sense? Totally fine with this, just ... later.
(NOTE: In the spirit of that, ticket has been re-opened and assigned to me)
Of course patches are always welcome, I personally like my namespace better, though I am not sold entirely on my API, nor am I sold on the Devel::BeginLift, but meh, all that can be discussed.
Thanks,
- Stevan
