Re: [Module-build-general] [PATCH] Better Makefile.PLs. Property methods.

[Steve P. <sp...@qu...>]

On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 01:21  pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:02:29AM +0100, Steve Purkis wrote:
>> Can I also suggest a slight variation on the accessor methods to 
>> return
>> $self in 'set' context, ie:
>>
>>       *{$property} = sub {
>>           my $self = shift;
>>           if (@_) { $self->{$property} = $_[0]; return $self; }
>>           else    { return $self->{$property}; }
>>       };
>>
>>       # means I can do this:
>>       $self->module_name( 'Foo' )
>>            ->install_base( '/home/foo' );
>
>         $self->module_name( 'Foo' );
>         $self->install_base( '/home/foo' );
>
> It doesn't buy much.

Yeah, I just find it easier to read, especially when you get into the 
habit of doing it by default.  In spurkis-land, I imagine using M::B 
like this:

	my $m = Module::Build->new
		->module_name( 'Foo' )
		->install_base( 'bar' )
		->...etc...
		->create_build_script
		->dispatch( 'config' );

And internally, something like this:

   sub ACTION_code {
     my $self = shift;
     $self->create_blib_arch
          ->autosplit_blib
          ->process_PL_files
          ->compile_support_files
          ->process_pm_files
          ->process_xs_files
          ->process_pod_files
          ->process_script_files
          ->_call_action( 'docs' );
   }

It's great - at a high level it's almost like writing a todo list.  But 
maybe I'm dreaming in agfa-colour ;).


> And it means you can't simultaneously set and get.
>
>     do_this if $self->module_bleh( $foo );

True, but I'd try to avoid that by checking $foo first anyway.  Or 
maybe do:

	$self->module_bleh( $foo ) and do_this if $foo;

But I didn't mean to turn this into a debate about style - I really am 
easy either way.  Having accessor methods is the important thing.

-Steve