Re: [siesta-dev] tiny refactor thoughts

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/04/01]

From: Richard Clamp
Subject: Re: [siesta-dev] tiny refactor thoughts
Date: 09:12 on 01 Apr 2003
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:59:26AM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 02:16:01PM +0100, Richard Clamp said:
> > 
> > =head2 decide what to do about $Plugin::DESCRIPTION;
> > 
> > it's a bit of a sore thumb now that everything else is very OO, maybe
> > provide it as $class->description, or part of $class->options (maybe
> > with a rename to $class->options)
> I think putting it in $class->options is a bad idea because you're 
> arbitarily preventing a plugin from having an option called description. 
> Not a big deal but it's just messy.

I think one step faster than that:


Which is why I mentioned renaming ->options, as it wouldn't just be
for options any more.

> I think $class->description();
> Now whether we do it by automatically looking for $DESCRIPTION or just 
> forcing them to write 
> 	sub description { "My description here" }
> is left up to the list to decide.

The latter.  Until we hit CPAN (which raises questions for another
time) all the apis are flexible where improvements can be made.

> >  $class->require;
> > 
> > which seems at little clearer
> Forgive my addled brain (I curse you Insomnius, Evil Lord of NoSleep) 
> but does this still require (no pun intended) an eval
> 	eval {
> 		$class->require;
> 	};
> etc etc

I guess you later found this part of the UNIVERSAL::require docs:

           Should the module require fail, or not be a high enough $version,
           it will simply return false and not die.  The error will be in

Richard Clamp <>
There's stuff above here

Generated at 13:56 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52