Wait, what's wrong with Perl::Snorft? I mean, does Moose actually describe what it does? Given the lack of precision concerns, creating a new term seems *perfect*
:-) David On Aug 31, 2013 1:11 AM, "Robert Rothenberg" <r...@cpan.org> wrote: > At $work, I've been writing scripts that use PPI to munge massive amounts > of legacy code. So far simple things like changing die/warn to croak/carp, > ensuring all modules specify a minimum version number, or changing print > "foo\n" so say "foo", etc. It seems worthy enough to turn this code into a > CPAN module. > > My thoughts are that it would use a plugin system for specific tasks, and > a command-line script that takes plugin names as arguments, so basically > you'd run the script to apply various tasks to a set of modules or scripts > in a directory, perhaps using a configuration file for each of the plugins. > > The early version would have simple plugins, but there's no reason why > more complex plugins couldn't be written (e.g. to translate a non-Moose > class into something Moose-like), or other things like optimize certain > kinds of expressions. > > I'm well aware of the limitations of doing this automatically. But the > idea is to get a script that can do the bulk of the tedious rewriting, so > that a human can clean up the mistakes. It's meant to be run by intelligent > people who use things like version control and tests. > > So what should it be called? I'm thinking Perl::Rewrite is the best name. > > > Alternatives are: > > - Perl::Refactor - except "refactoring" has a technical meaning that I > don't think applies > > - Perl::Modernize - except that one might want a plugin that translates > newer-style code into older code > > - Perl::Munge - except that it connotes sloppiness > > - Perl::Snorft - no, just kidding.... I have no idea what that means. > > - ? > > Thanks, > Rob >
