Re: Prototype Attributes

On 17 Dec 2008, at 08:07, Christopher Brown wrote:
<snip>
>
> _1_
> The naive way is using normal attributes in standard roles.  This  
> is simple
> and straightforward.  But implementing attributes this way, limits  
> one to
> hardcoded attribute names and definitions.  For example, if a role  
> defines
> an attribute as 'rw', you could not easily specify it as 'ro' and  
> not before
> it was already installed. The limitations of this approach is clear.

I'm using this technique in a few places, and I do some overriding  
using the has '+attrname' syntax.

It works well enough for my current use-case, but as you note has  
several disadvantages, and I can see a need for something more flexible.

> _3_
> Another method would be to rewrite/overload/intercept the has  
> subroutine.  I
> haven't thought about the entire ramifications or complications  
> here.   But
> this is likely the best way to handle this.

I'm not sure that I'm in favour of the syntax that you propose,  
however I wouldn't have a definite opinion until I could play with  
something..

> I would appreciate your thoughts,

I'd certainly be prepared to spend some time playing with and giving  
you feedback on a MooseX module which implemented a prototype of the  
feature.

Cheers
t0m