Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Building an anonymous subroutine

by Anonymous Monk
on Aug 13, 2002 at 12:39 UTC ( #189759=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Building an anonymous subroutine
in thread Building an anonymous subroutine

Closures upon closures is not intrinsically easier or harder to keep organized than subclasses upon subclasses.

They just organize naturally in different ways. If a clean OO model fits your problem, then OO naturally channels you. If it doesn't, then using closures is better than trying to fight OO into an imitation of what you would do more naturally with closures. Particularly so in Perl where writing any OO involves so much infrastructure.

BTW your extra method-call hooks could be replaced with a single method that is intended to be called from subclasses with SUPER. Less code and infrastructure, same result.


Comment on Re: Re: Building an anonymous subroutine

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://189759]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-26 12:15 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (176 votes), past polls