Re^3: RFC on how I'm doing when it comes to writing objects?

"As far as I knew, when I return a blessed reference to data in a subroutine, I have an object which I do not have to export."

As far as I knew, "le" is a proper French word, meaning "the".

I don't dispute that your code returns blessed objects. There is more to that than writing object-oriented code though. As per your update:

"I added comments to let you know what each object is supposed to do"

That alone is a warning sign. If the different objects do different things, then they should be instances of separate classes.

Your "objects" apparently don't have any object methods, so why are you using "objects" rather than plain old hashes?

package Cow { use Moo; has name => (is => 'lazy', default => sub { 'Mooington' }) } say Cow->new->name

Comment on Re^3: RFC on how I'm doing when it comes to writing objects?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC on how I'm doing when it comes to writing objects? by Lady_Aleena (Priest) on Feb 05, 2013 at 19:43 UTC
I will be removing all of the "object" code from the module, changing its name, and rewriting the thirty-odd scripts in which I have used this module; since I am using these subroutines to return arrays and hashes, nothing more. Thank you for showing me where I went wrong in my thinking. *Have a cookie and a very nice day!* Lady Aleena	[reply]