[PPC0022] - Initial entry point as functions vs. constructor-methods
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Perl
- Stars
- 79
- Forks
- 28
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
The original design had functions such as
my $metapkg = meta::get_package("some::name::here");
A suggestion from the mailing list was that these could instead be written as constructor-style methods on named packages within meta:
my $metapkg = meta::package->get("some::name::here");
Having implemented both now it feels actually a little nicer to use the latter style. Plus it conveniently gives a place to explain and document what actual class these meta-objects appear to be in.
If we think this style is better we should update the doc to match.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the two entry-point forms shown in the issue and the surrounding proposal documentation. Confirm which style should be adopted and document the meta-object class and constructor-style usage; no specific file or test is named in the issue.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- perl
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100