--- Ian Langworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reflecting upon this, I'm not even sure why I'd want argument > modification as a feature. (Maybe I still had Hook::LexWrap on the > brain.) I might just take this out.
I vote for taking it out. I view contracts to be similar to exceptions in one respect: when implemented properly, removing them from the code should not affect the normal operation of the code (sweeping a few things under the rug there). Thus, argument modification is a no-no. Some might argue against the bondage and discipline, but they're probably not going to be using Class::Agreement anyway :) > Class::Agreement's contracts should be > nearly as light as putting "die unless" in your methods. What? I had no idea. Was that in the docs and I overlooked it? To me, this is probably one of the strongest features of Class::Agreement and should definitely be hyped. Many aren't going to use Class::Contract due to the performance hit. Cheers, Ovid -- If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send follow up questions to the list. Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
