I suppose there is a good reason why “eval” sounds and looks so similar to “evil” .    But yes there are times when you just have to be “evil” with your code!!

Keep up the good work on Doodle. It could be a useful module to have in ones toolbox when switching between Perl & Ruby code in the future!

regards Barry

Most rubyists do subscribe to the notion that ‘eval is evil’ but as Piers points out there are some limitations in ruby 1.8.6 that sometimes force you to use it.

doodle uses string eval only to get around a limitation of ruby 1.8.6′s define_method which does not allow blocks as arguments. Otherwise, there’s nothing in the collector code that couldn’t be done cleanly (though the current implementation pragmatically takes advantage of the fact that the line has already been crossed). The upcoming revision of doodle for ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.1 will not have to use any string evals.

Regards,
Sean

Just want to to say I really enjoyed your MooseX::Declare presentation at the London Perl Mongers tech talk last night.

Unfortunately didn’t get chance to introduce myself because had to leave straight after the event. By the sounds of your rekindled joy for using MooSex… sorry Perl …. then we may still bump into each other at some point in the near future.

regards Barry

cheers, Enquire!!!!

No I didn’t look too closely at the implementation of the collectors. Ruby people don’t seem to have a problem with “sting eval as metaprogramming” as much as the Perl community does.

It seems to me that it’s primarily just “inline” coercions, rather then the more global type centric coercions that Moose offers.

- Stevan

Yes I look forward to popping into #moose IRC in the near future. After my last comment I did subscribe to the Moose mailing list so perhaps u will see my head pop up there pretty soon.

This collector doesn’t (necessarily) scratch an immediate production itch for me but there’s plenty of other Moose stuff that I need to get my teeth into.

Barry

PS. Did have a quick look at how Doodle collector worked. From what I can see it uses an eval string to do all its magic. Hmmm… not sure if this is the route u would want to use in Moose?

You should come by #moose on irc.perl.org and discuss a MooseX:: collector module of some kind. There were several other people interested in a more automagic coercion solution, and the collector idea would fit in right nicely with this I think.

- Stevan

Many thanks for the comment and keep up the excellent work on Moose.

Yes the “Collector” feature in Doodle does look interesting and so the coerce on ‘Places’ required extra lines in this Moose example to mimic it. And I totally agree with u about the coercions & code size… it shouldn’t be changed because they’re beautifully declarative.

When I get around to “Part 2″ (yeah… dream on!) I was hoping to mention that they might be a “Collector” equivalent in Moose but u’ve now answered that question ;-( Still perhaps a MooseX Collector module is around the corner from one of us!

/I3az/

PS. I did first look at Moose back in 2006. However at the time I had just initiated a style guide policy using PBP for all our code and so was using Class::Std everywhere. Anyway got some big projects with a new startup and I plan to use Moose from now on in.

> The Moose example produced twice as many lines!

I think actually most of the code size difference seems to be in the coercion. Of course it could probably be golfed down a bit, but that kills maintainability so probably not worth it.

The “Collector” feature in Doodle actually looks very cool, and would make an excellent Moose extension (MooseX:: module).