Re: Trying to create an attribute trait that prompts for a value if none specified

As long as you document what you are doing so that the poor sap who has to
maintain your code after you win the lottery can figure it out, I say go
for it!  Wrapping _process_options is time honored, convenient, and an
absolute must technique for any mooser, imho.

As far as private methods:  _process_options is private, but could be
public.  clone_and_inherit_options is public, but really should be private.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Buddy Burden <[email protected]>wrote:

> Chris,
>
> > I've always had the opinion that if I'm writing metaclass traits, then by
> > definition I'm changing the private parts to accomplish my task.  Which
> to
> > me makes it far more acceptable than, say, poking at _process_options()
> from
> > outside of Moose::Meta::Attribute.  That is, I'm not accessing private
> > methods inappropriately, as once the trait is consumed it's part of the
> > class itself.  (/me braces for contrary commentary)
>
> Well, that's a fair point.  My only counterpoint would be this bit of code:
>
> >     $class->_process_options($name, \%options) unless
> $options{__hack_no_process_options}; # used from clone()... YECHKKK FIXME
> ICKY YUCK GROSS
>
> which leads me to believe that, eventually, someone is going to change
> *something* about it. :-D
>
> > Well, that and I'm not sure how to accomplish any of this _without_
> poking
> > at the guts :)
>
> Well, both ealleniii and Todd provided alternatives which don't rely
> on any private methods, but yours has the advantage of being the
> absolute simplest (and least scary, really, private-method-meddling
> and all).  So I think I'm going to go with this approach for now.  If
> any other Moosites want to chiime in and tell me it's a terrible
> thing, I'll consider that if I do end up getting that wild hair and
> trying to wrestle it into a CPAN release.  But for now this works
> really well and doesn't hurt my brain too much. :-)
>
>
>             -- Buddy
>