Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the Devel-Declare CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 71379
Status: open
Priority: 0/
Queue: Devel-Declare

People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: mschwern [...] cpan.org
Cc:
AdminCc:

Bug Information
Severity: Wishlist
Broken in: 0.006007
Fixed in: (no value)



Subject: Option for "BeginLift" in MethodInstaller?
Your idea for injecting do { BEGIN { *foo = sub { ... }; } }; into Method::Signatures to replace Devel::BeginLift worked! Now the challenge is how to do it without impolite hackery of Devel::Declare::MethodInstaller::Simple and Devel::Declare::Context::Simple. It would be a bit easier to do as an optional feature of DDMIS or DDCS, and also generally useful to everyone else. Discourages people from using Devel::BeginLift if the functionality is built into Devel::Declare. Would you accept a patch for that?
CC: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #71379] Option for "BeginLift" in MethodInstaller?
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 11:19:23 +0100
To: Michael G Schwern via RT <bug-Devel-Declare [...] rt.cpan.org>
From: Zefram <zefram [...] fysh.org>
Michael G Schwern via RT wrote: Show quoted text
>It would be a bit easier to do as an optional feature of DDMIS or DDCS,
... Show quoted text
>Would you accept a patch for that?
Potentially. It's certainly a sane concept. When using DD directly (not using DDCS) it's dead easy to get this sort of effect: you transform "func foo {...}" into "func; sub foo {...}". (Don't even need BHEOS in the simple case.) DDMIS and DDCS make it impossible to do something so simple, and they also impede the BHEOS fix that I suggested to you, so it's only fair that they take on the job. -zefram
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #71379] Option for "BeginLift" in MethodInstaller?
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:11:46 -0700
To: bug-Devel-Declare [...] rt.cpan.org
From: Michael G Schwern <schwern [...] pobox.com>
On 2011.10.1 3:19 AM, Zefram via RT wrote: Show quoted text
> Potentially. It's certainly a sane concept. When using DD directly > (not using DDCS) it's dead easy to get this sort of effect: you transform > "func foo {...}" into "func; sub foo {...}". (Don't even need BHEOS > in the simple case.) DDMIS and DDCS make it impossible to do something > so simple, and they also impede the BHEOS fix that I suggested to you, > so it's only fair that they take on the job.
Oh. Why do they do all that extra crap?