![]() |
|
The stupid question is the question not asked | |
PerlMonks |
Re^2: Never, never, neverby MarkusLaker (Beadle) |
on Apr 24, 2005 at 11:24 UTC ( #450918=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Here's a demonstration of why indirect object notation is dangerous:
The explanation is that print $fh makes Perl look for Print in the current package before looking in $fh's package, whereas $fh->Print looks only in $fh's class and any base classes. On another subject completely, this demo program violates another 'always, always, always' rule that people often mention: always pass the class name as the first argument of a constructor and bless the new object into the package supplied to you rather than the current package. I think that's unnecessary. Any derived package can call your constructor and then rebless the new object into itself. IMHO, one of several problems that make OOP unnecessarily difficult in Perl 5 is that a constructor can't easily and efficiently tell whether it was invoked as pkg->new or pkg::new (in other words, whether the package name was passed as the first arguemnt or not, and therefore where in @_ the 'real' arguments begin). Most people use the former, but the latter is more efficient because it passes one argument fewer. Perl 6 fixes this problem, along with so many others. Markus
In Section
Meditations
|
|