But what if my program already has a get_string() function or an %N hash,
and I add this module after the fact?
Well, so what? You _do_ know the working of Perl, don't you? Then
you _do_ know that if you do:
use Module ();
the import() routine isn't called, and nothing will be
exported. In which case, you can still use the function by calling
it like:
Module::get_string ()
But a name clash is an exceptional case - normally you don't have a name
clash (I've been programming Perl for over 6 years now, I cannot recall
ever having had a name clash problem), and you can just use the short
get_string. But with a class method, you have to use
Module -> sub, even if it's not necessary.
The OO isn't really pointless. It's happening either way-- exporting
symbols without being asked to do so is just a sneaky way of concealing
it is all.
Exporting symbols without being asked is only a sneaky way if there
isn't an easy way to avoid it. All you need to do is ask to _not_
import anything. That takes a whopping two characters.
A module author using Exporter gives the programmer a choice -
a module author using OO to avoid name clashes doesn't. I know who acts
Perlish, and it ain't the latter programmer.
As for the %N of Lingua::EN::Numbers::Easy, let
me quote from the manual:
By default, "Lingua::EN::Numbers::Easy" exports a hash
"%N" to the importing package. Also, by default, "Lin-
gua::EN::Numbers::Easy" uses the British mode of "Lin-
gua::EN::Numbers". Both defaults can be changed by
optional arguments to the "use Lingua::EN::Numbers::Easy;"
statement.
The first argument determines the parsing mode of "Lin-
gua::EN::Numbers". Currently, "Lingua::EN::Numbers" sup-
ports British and American. The second argument deter-
mines the name of the hash in the importing package.
use Lingua::EN::Numbers::Easy qw /American %nums/;
would use American parsing mode, and "%nums" as the tied
hash.
If %N gives you a name clash, just use any other suitable name.
OO isn't the only way of solving name clash problems!
Abigail
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Well, so what? You _do_ know the working of Perl, don't you?
Actually I didn't know about use module ();
never having had a need to use it I never bothered to learn it. Usually I've either wanted new subs directly in my name space or I use an instance w/instance methods. I've never used a module which had an interface that should have done the former, but did the latter instead. Just lucky I guess. :)
I'll yield that name clashes probably aren't that big of a deal. And for what is essentially a one-function module, I'd probably opt for explicitly exporting that function (too bad Lingua::EN::Numbers' internals are so messy that this isn't really possible without an interface or a serious rewrite), especially given that there is a way to prevent it (and thanks for pointing that out).
A module author using Exporter gives the programmer a choice - a module author using OO to avoid name clashes doesn't. I know who acts Perlish, and it ain't the latter programmer.
A module author using Exporter is using OO-- subclassing, I believe-- and to good effect. Whether they provide a constructor and instance methods or just class methods is a different story. In the example module it might have been avoided-- but what if you want to have a number-to-English machine that does British working alongside one that does American? You'll need to have two instances of the machine, which I think was the motivation here (no matter how bizarre the result was). This would not have precluded making get_string both an instance and a class method and having the class method rely on a default/class variable for locale.
| [reply]
[d/l] |