Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: Private method variations

by adrianh (Chancellor)
on Mar 01, 2004 at 22:29 UTC ( #333079=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


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

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.


Comment on Re^4: Private method variations
Select or Download Code
Re: Re^4: Private method variations
by TimToady (Parson) on Mar 02, 2004 at 00:36 UTC
    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://333079]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-12-27 13:43 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

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





    Results (177 votes), past polls