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

Wrapping _process_options is cool.  I complained about it on irc a few
months ago, and was informed that I was over thinking, and for moose
it is ok.

About a million MooseX modules use this technique.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Chris Weyl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Buddy Burden <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> No, you've hit it straight on the head, and I agree it's minimally
>> invasive, but the downside is that I'd be wrapping a private method,
>> which strikes me as dangerous.  What if that chunk of Moose guts
>> changes out from under me?
>
>
> 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 and I'm not sure how to accomplish any of this _without_ poking
> at the guts :)
>
> I'm not in a position to guarantee anything, but _process_options() has been
> around for as long as I can remember.  IMHO it's pretty safe to rely on this
> method being there for the foreseeable future.
>
>> BTW, in the odd coincidence department, your AutoDestruct attribute
>> trait was one of the ones I was cribbing off of when I wrote my
>> original attempt (the other being Karen Etheridge's
>> SlurpyConstructor).  So thanks for that inadvertent bit of inspiration
>> as well. :-)
>
>
> No problem!  I'm glad it helped :)
>
>                                              -Chris
>
> --
> Chris Weyl
> Ex astris scientia