Re^3: RFC: Class::Proxy::MethodChain

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.

Comment on Re^3: RFC: Class::Proxy::MethodChain

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks