Bug #2598 for Params-Validate: syntactic sugar: validate_pos(@

Sat May 17 18:42:16 2003 MARKSTOS [...] cpan.org - Ticket created

Subject:

syntactic sugar: validate_pos(@_, 3, 2)

Hello, I'm a new Params::Validate user and I find it very useful. Thanks! I have a suggestion to improve the validate_pos() interface a bit, while still being backwards compatible. Currenty, as I understand the basic for of validate_pos(), it consists only of a string of 1's followed by a string of zeros. This is hard to read, and this not how I think about it. I think "3 required, 2 optional". Since only "0" and 1" are the integers used now, I'd like to see this kind of interface supported: validate_pos(@_,3,2); That would mean that the first three fields are required, followed by two optionals. This syntax also prevents this happening by accident(1,0,1,0,1); Thanks! Mark

Tue May 20 00:10:30 2003 autarch [...] urth.org - Correspondence added

Date:	Mon, 19 May 2003 23:10:24 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Dave Rolsky <autarch [...] urth.org>
To:	via RT <bug-Params-Validate [...] rt.cpan.org>
Subject:	Re: [cpan #2598] syntactic sugar: validate_pos(@_, 3, 2)
RT-Send-Cc:

On Sat, 17 May 2003, via RT wrote: Show quoted text

> I'm a new Params::Validate user and I find it very useful. Thanks! I > have a suggestion to improve the validate_pos() interface a bit, while > still being backwards compatible. > > Currenty, as I understand the basic for of validate_pos(), it consists > only of a string of 1's followed by a string of zeros. This is hard to > read, and this not how I think about it. I think "3 required, 2 > optional". > > Since only "0" and 1" are the integers used now, I'd like to see this > kind of interface supported:

Actually, only true or false values are used. For all I know someone is doing something like: validate_pos( @_, 'required', 'required', ... ); so I'm not going to require 0 or 1 only. Show quoted text

> validate_pos(@_,3,2); > > That would mean that the first three fields are required, followed by > two optionals. This syntax also prevents this happening by > accident(1,0,1,0,1);

You could just write a subroutine like this: sub required { (1) x $_[0] } sub optional { (0) x $_[0] } and then do this: validate_pos( @_, required(3), optional(2) ); -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/

Tue May 20 00:11:29 2003 DROLSKY [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'new' to 'resolved'

Bug #2598 for Params-Validate: syntactic sugar: validate_pos(@_, 3, 2)