664, 668 - Getopt::Long

[Eric Wilhelm]

# from Andy Armstrong
# on Thursday 04 October 2007 12:11:

>On 4 Oct 2007, at 20:02, Andy Armstrong wrote:
>>> Yes we do, and plugins will too.
>>
>> When was that decided?
>
>Or less tersely: you seem to have an agenda for plugins which
>includes the use of your inherit mechanism

no.  "my" inherit mechanism is disposable, but not without an adequate 
replacement.  If you're using "inheritance sucks" to judge all of my 
decisions, that's a bad metric.

>and allows plugins to inject arbitrary options to App::Prove.

Yes.  At least to some extent.

>I'm not aware that we've agreed on that.

That's a different discussion.

The simple fact is: Getopt::Long breaks error handling.  It does an 
unchecked eval.  Do I really need to defend this?

>I don't like the idea of plugins adding options to App::Prove

That's a different discussion.

Getopt::Long breaks error handling.  This means neither we nor plugins 
can die() *anywhere* under *any* subref which is handed to it.  Do you 
really want to have to keep that "action at a distance" in mind rather 
than just ******* fixing it?

--Eric
-- 
"Because understanding simplicity is complicated."
--Eric Raymond
---------------------------------------------------
    http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------