Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re^2: Private method variations

by TimToady (Parson)
on Mar 01, 2004 at 17:34 UTC ( #332988=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Private method variations
in thread Private method variations

Actually, how about OUR:: instead of My:: - or is that somewhere in Perl 6 too?
Well, I actually thought about that one, but didn't think you'd go for something even longer. :-)

As for whether it's in Perl 6, the only answer I can give is: "not yet". But by and large all-uppercase names are kinda sorta reserved for Perl to grow into. More or less. So maybe Our:: would be a better choice.


Comment on Re: Re^2: Private method variations
Download Code
Re^4: Private method variations
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Mar 01, 2004 at 22:29 UTC
    Well, I actually thought about that one, but didn't think you'd go for something even longer. :-)

    One extra character I can probably cope with :-)

    As for whether it's in Perl 6, the only answer I can give is: "not yet". But by and large all-uppercase names are kinda sorta reserved for Perl to grow into. More or less. So maybe Our:: would be a better choice.

    Your right that from an upward compatibility point of view Our:: (or My::) is clearly a better choice.

    The downside is that it then looks so much like a normal fully qualified method call. Thanks to NEXT and SUPER using UPPERCASE provides a handy cue to the developer that some magic is happening.

    Hmmm... Swings or roundabouts. Roundabouts or swings.

    Oooohhh! Just had a sneaky idea.

    "_" seems to be a valid package name. Is:

    sub _::secret { ... }; $self->_::secret();

    to evil? Even shorter that MY::, doesn't look like a "normal" fully qualified method call and we get the whole "_" thang that people are already used to.

      Well, package _ will probably be the current package, just as $_ is the current topic and &_ is the current sub. Also, in some cases, @_ is still the current argument list, and %_ will often be the current options.
        Well, package _ will probably be the current package

        Phoey :-)

        Ah well. Now leaning toward one of:

        $self->OUR::private_method $self->__::private_method $self->_MY::private_method

        All screams of "Good grief that's too ugly for words" welcome!

        Here's a thought - offload the naming decision onto the developer:

        package Foo; use Package::Prefix Our => 'Foo::Our'; sub new { my $self = bless {}, shift; $self->Our::init(@_); return $self; }; sub Our::init { ... };

        which would have the affect of defining/calling Foo::Our::init. This could have other convenient uses:

        use Package::Prefix VLPN => 'Very::Long::Package::Name'; use VLPN::Foo; use VLPN::Bar; my $foo = VLPN::Foo->new(); my $bar = VLPN::Bar->new();
        &_ is the current sub? Cool! That means I can recurse, tail-eliminatively, with
        goto &_
        rather than
        goto &{ (caller(0))[3] };
        Well, I view it as a significant bene, anyway.

        But then, you probably have better things in mind for TRE...

        jdporter
        The 6th Rule of Perl Club is -- There is no Rule #6.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://332988]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-12-25 13:37 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (160 votes), past polls