[Catalyst-dev] Moose + Catalyst port

[Jonathan Rockway]

* On Sat, Mar 15 2008, Guillermo Roditi wrote:
>>  > I think it does this because it may have _subclasses_.
>>
>>  Or, think of it another way. Instead of subclasses...aka stacking
>>  classes on top of each other... think composition...stacking classes
>>  beside each other in another class. Like plugins that don't sublasses
>>  anything, but get stuffed into something else. And NEXT just allows them
>>  to pass traffic along to the next guy, without knowing who the next guy
>>  really is.
>
> Ok, so I guess this question breaks down further.
> Should I be using method modifiers or NEXT or next? I need a core dev
> to really answer that. I thought we would be moving to method
> modifiers, but that won't work just like that, mainly because I can't
> use a method modifier unless another method already exists either in
> the same file, a previously consumed role, or up the ISA hierarchy,
> which means that there would be nothing on top for
> &COMPONENT::COMPONENT to extend, hence the call would be a no-op.
>
> Do I make sense?
>
> I understand why it's being used, but won't it be unnecessary to have
> this if Catalyst, C::M, C::V and C::C lose the MI?

Method modifiers.  NEXT is one of the worst pieces of software ever
written.  It needs to die.

The only reason we use MI in Catalyst is for extensibility reasons.
Roles will replace MI for this.

Regards,
Jonathan Rockway

-- 
print just => another => perl => hacker => if $,=$"