Re: Re^2: Private method variations

[TimToady]

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.

[adrianh]

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.

[TimToady]

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.

[adrianh]

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!

[adrianh]

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();

[jdporter]

&_ 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...