Re^2: RFC: Class::Proxy::MethodChain

Personal taste - but I'd have the sub first to keep it like map, grep, et al.

sub apply_chain (&$) {
   local $_ = $_[1];
   $_[0]->();
   $_;
}

my $window = apply_chain {
   $_->signal_connect(delete => sub { Gtk->exit(0) });
   $_->set_title("Test");
   $_->border_width(15);
   $_->add( apply_chain {
       $_->signal_connect(clicked => sub { Gtk->exit(0) });
       $_->show;
   } Gtk::Button->new("Quit") );
   $_->show;
} Gtk::Window->new("toplevel");
[download]

Comment on Re^2: RFC: Class::Proxy::MethodChain Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: RFC: Class::Proxy::MethodChain by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Feb 26, 2003 at 07:09 UTC
The point of writing that function was that using map makes it read out of order - the `new` is at the bottom. Reversing the arguments on `for_obj` makes it practically the same thing as map so I would just stick with that one then. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^4: RFC: Class::Proxy::MethodChain by adrianh (Chancellor) on Feb 26, 2003 at 10:29 UTC
Order is relative. Since everything else in perl that applies something to something else has the application block first that way reads more naturally to me in perl. To-mah-to. To-may-to. :-) Roll on perl6. With `~>` and `<~` and we can both be happy :-)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: RFC: Class::Proxy::MethodChain by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Feb 27, 2003 at 19:35 UTC
Guess there's points to be made for either choice. It seems to be a matter largely of choosing between clear but verbose and concise but less obvious approaches.. the question is when verbosity detracts from clarity and when not - a choice that's probably going to be taken differently by every programmer. Well, given Perl 6 (pun intended), we won't have to choose.. now if only it was here. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]


Welcome to the Monastery
	PerlMonks