Do we need to support "into"? about method-signatures HOT 5 CLOSED

The only use case I know of is when making a bundle module that turns on a bunch of features. This is better done by inheriting from Method::Signatures. Unlike using "into", the bundle will inherit the lexical pragma nature. This program demonstrates: https://gist.github.com/1238683

@chipdude Are there other use cases for into?

from method-signatures.

That use case is enough to support it. I send you frownie vibes for not liking it.

from method-signatures.

Is there a problem with inheriting? Does "into" provide something that inheriting does not?

from method-signatures.

The only problem with inheriting is the problem with attaching a brick to a pencil: It introduces extra work to make a tool more difficult to use. Oh, and the interfaces used by the derived class will have to be supported, so how is this saving work exactly?

from method-signatures.

I didn't explain it well. The use case for inheriting I'm discussing is only for creating bundle modules like Modern::Perl and perl5i. Modules from which users do not inherit, so the Vulcan Mind Meld problems do not manifest. I agree, it sucks, but it's how you propagate lexical pragmas... sometimes. Sometimes you just need to call import() in your import(). It's all voodoo.

Anyhow, that voodoo is making using Method::Signatures as a lexical pragma difficult. So I'll drop this in the name of offering MTOWTDI.

from method-signatures.