Add a 'OneArgNew' trait #5
Conversation
A variation on the theme that does away with giving the type and init arg attribute name in the `with`, but rather lifts it straight from the attribute's declaration. The additional code doesn't change anything at all (and doesn't interact) with the role, so this could be released as an independent MooseX::OneArgNew::AsTrait. If you prefer me to do that, just say the word. I just thought that offering the two options in the same distribution wouldn't be the worst thing ever. :-)
|
I like the trait idea, but not that you could apply it to more than one attribute. I think it will lead to more confusion than it's worth at some point. Also, can the ordering be guaranteed to work as described when attributes in the class come from multiple different roles? I'd apply it with exclusivity: more than one attribute with this trait in a class is fatal… …but is that really possible? With subclassing, I bet it can't be nicely guaranteed. What do you think? |
|
While I see the appeal of having different attributes that can get the trait, I concede that this might lead to crazy-town real fast. I think the "only one" rule can be enforced: when meddling with the class in |
|
I just pushed the changes required to only accept one attribute with the OneArgNew trait. |
A variation on the theme that does away with giving
the type and init arg attribute name in
the
with, but rather lifts it straight from theattribute's declaration.
The additional code doesn't change anything at all (and doesn't interact)
with the role, so this could be released as an independent
MooseX::OneArgNew::AsTrait. If you prefer me to do that, just say the word.
I just thought that offering the two options in the same distribution
wouldn't be the worst thing ever. :-)