On 28 March 2013 17:36, Piers Cawley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 28 March 2013 16:41, Jesse Luehrs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:20:55AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
>>> Ouch! You're right. My apologies for the confusion. The examples should be
>>> this:
>>>
>>> use 5.01000;
>>> { package a; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'a' } }
>>> { package b; use Moose::Role; }
>>> { package c; use Moose::Role; with qw(a b); sub result { 'c' } }
>>> { package d; use Moose::Role; with qw(c); }
>>> {
>>> package Consumer; use Moose;
>>> with 'd';
>>> }
>>> say Consumer->new->result;
>>>
>>> Versus:
>>>
>>> use 5.01000;
>>> { package a; use Moose::Role; with qw(b c); sub result { 'a' } }
>>> { package b; use Moose::Role; }
>>> { package c; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'c' } }
>>> { package d; use Moose::Role; with qw(a); }
>>> {
>>> package Consumer; use Moose;
>>> with 'd';
>>> }
>>> say Consumer->new->result;
>>>
>>> Only the order of role consumption is changed, but the behavior is now
>>> different.
>>
>> I can't really agree here that "only the order of role consumption is
>> changed". I certainly wouldn't have the expectation that those two code
>> snippets would necessarily produce the same result. The reason for this
>> change is to bring role composition in roles into line with how role
>> composition in classes works. For instance, here:
>>
>> package a; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'a' }
>> package b; use Moose; sub result { 'b' }
>>
>> This has always worked without error. On the other hand, this:
>>
>> package a; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'a' }
>> package b; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'b' }
>>
>> has historically been a conflict error, and one that has bit me (and
>> several other people) on several occasions. I have never meant anything
>> other than the behavior that happens in the class case, so I don't see
>> why extending that behavior to the role case is a problem. (Or is it
>> your opinion that the first snippet there should also be a conflict?)
>>
>> In general, I can't really understand why the behavior for roles and
>> classes should be different in this sense. A role consuming another role
>> is a different operation from role summation, and one that I think
>> should behave more similarly to a class consuming a role. Note that this
>> is still a conflict:
>>
>> { package a; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'a' } }
>> { package b; use Moose::Role; }
>> { package c; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'c' } }
>> { package d; use Moose::Role; with qw(a b c); }
>>
>> The other benefit here is that with this change, alias and excludes
>> become completely unnecessary, and can hopefully be deprecated.
>
> Whoah! What? So when I want to compose, say a and b and write my own
> 'result' which will combine a's result and b's result, what am I
> supposed to do?
>
> I'd always been under the impression that when I do:
>
> with qw(a b);\
>
> I'm expressing the expectation that there are no conflicts between
> those two roles and I want an (ideally compile time) error if they do
> conflict, and I can get in and fix it through judicious use of
> excludes (and possibly an alias or two).
>
> If I want the order of composition to matter, then I can do
>
> with 'a';
> with 'b';
>
> For the life of me I can't see how this change can be called a good idea.
>
>> If what you're after here is a way to disallow all forms of silent
>> method overriding, I think this is better done in an extension (since it
>> would have to catch conflicts in inheritance situations as well anyway).
>
> That's certainly not what I'm after. But I do want to retain the
> difference between 'with qw(a b)' and 'with q(a); with q(b);' thank
> you very much.
>
> Who cooked up this idea?
To clarify: I'm all for having this:
package a; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'a' };
package b; use Moose::Role; with 'a'; sub result { 'b' }
work without throwing any warnings, but if that comes at the expense of:
package a; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'a' };
package b; use Moose::Role; sub result { 'b' };
package c; use Moose; with qw(a b);
not throwing an error then that's a regression and I, for one, am a
less than happy bunny.
