Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Adriano Ferreira wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Jesse Vincent <jesse@fsck.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> The only way to subclass it is a monolithic copy/paste. I don't see that it being added hurts anything existing. >> >> That sounds like something it would be great to fix. >> > > I agree whole-heartily with that. By doing the magic necessary to > disentangle the guts of Locale::Maketext from the original > implementation idiosyncrasies (which are for example the use of simple > Perl hashes and replacing its entries as they get interpreted / > compiled), that would be a promising path for the evolution of the > module without inadvertent effects to what already works with > Locale::Maketext. > > Of course, that's not an easy task. I already suggested to the > tickets' original requestor that forking Locale::Maketext, approaching > the inability to extend it which is caused by the actual code > structure, and offering such rewrite so it can prove its power / value > (by benchmarks and by being applied to actual code / applications), > that would gives us confidence to think about replacing the original > module. > > Sorry for being so conservative, but I really believe that > Locale::Maketext code should not grow to be more complicate (and > expensive in performance and maintenance efforts) that it already is. Thanks everyone for your advice on this one. It's always surprising what'll spark a thread. I agree with your points. The last thing I want is to slow this critical module down. Look for a patch from me in a month or 2 on re-factoring L:M to make it simpler to subclass. Thanks, ToddThread Previous