http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=792629


in reply to Re^6: A working strategy to handle AUTOLOAD, can(), and (multiple) inheritance without touching UNIVERSAL?
in thread A working strategy to handle AUTOLOAD, can(), and (multiple) inheritance without touching UNIVERSAL?

Interesting. This is exactly why I think a module is needed. It is too complicated to be reimplemented and at least my first version was flawed or incomplete. I'd be more inclined to trust a module if the documentation and test suite give the impression of the module being robust.
Yeah. If there was such a module I would use it. But if everyone followed my advice there would be no early adopters and so it would never reach the required maturity. I suspect all the perl brains (who could cut through this) are currently working on perl6.
>>> This means you have to craft your own solution, but it is fairly simple. That sounds a bit contradictory. :-)
Not at all contradictory. If you craft your own solution you are not trying to come up with an all encompassing solution but rather your are cutting your goals back to what matters in your circumstances.
How about return if $method eq 'DESTROY'; in AUTOLOAD?
Isn't this obscurantist? If you want to implement DESTROY why not just define one. Are you arguing that once you start using AUTOLOAD everything should pass through AUTOLOAD?
Would that include looking at UNIVERSAL::can to find "real" methods?
This is exactly what I do not trust. It seems that one class is trying to be very clever. It just feels wrong.