A few questions. #14
Closed
A few questions. #14
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ sub INSTALL_FINALIZATION_RUNNER { | |||
| # an eval STRING; | |||
| || (caller(3))[3] eq '(eval)'; | |||
|
|
|||
| # Any reason to use private API instead of public here? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am sure I had a reason at one point, but I don't recall it now, so, no, it should use the public API.
|
So, yes, we need more validation of input, I purposefully left it out for now to keep the code simple and the design more "obvious". The same is true for I should probably have mentioned this when we talked :) |
|
Created one issue (#16) from this, but other issues/questions are actually no longer relevant because we removed ABSTRACT and CLOSED stuff. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR has one question on the code directly (but nothing to actually merge, just start discussion).
Aside from that:
You can specify a non-sub for @Has attributes:
This will crash at runtime with a not-a-code-reference. Would it be possible/better to do this check at compile time (unitcheck?) when finalizing the class to make sure attributes are properly formed?
Also, $IS_ABSTRACT/$IS_CLOSED are writeable after the class has been compiled, should this be
locked somehow? Deleting/modifying %HAS also modifies closed objects after they are supposed to have a consistent state. Is this acceptable/intentional?
One final thing, ->new() doesn't check for invalid parameters being passed to the constructor. Should it? Or is that up to a sugar layer?