Re: inheritance turns back and bites

you expect that increment call SomeData::add, but it calls MyNumber::add. Because it is a MyNumber object. If you do not want that, write in package SomeData

sub increment {
    my $self = shift;
    $self->SomeData::add(number => 1);
}
[download]

Boris

Comment on Re: inheritance turns back and bites Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: inheritance turns back and bites by esskar (Deacon) on Mar 01, 2004 at 13:46 UTC
Always use SUPER instead of the parent-class-name; so in the case of changeing the parent-class, you won't have to replace all the "SomeData::" stuff to the new parent-class-name. SUPER is pretty super.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: inheritance turns back and bites by borisz (Canon) on Mar 01, 2004 at 13:59 UTC
But SUPER is wrong here, I like to use SomeData or build something with __PACKAGE__. Boris	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: inheritance turns back and bites by tovod-everett (Sexton) on Mar 02, 2004 at 04:12 UTC
If your intent is to ensure that increment calls add in the same package, why not use: `sub increment { my $self = shift; &add($self, number => 1); }` [download] Use subroutine calls when you want to create your own explicit binding, use -> notation when you desire runtime binding of the message. Of course, it would be my opinion that it is particularly bad form for a child class to re-implement a method in a manner that is not backward compatible - it's a violation of the contract as far as I'm concerned. --Toby Ovod-Everett	[reply] [d/l]


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks