comment on

I don't expect programmers to automatically know they can call $object->new and if they try it without reading the docs then I would be in the "serves 'em right" camp. Does that do the same thing as calling new() on a classname (like all other class methods do?) or does it make a clone of the object? If it clones it, is it a deep or shallow copy? Do the two instances really share the same filehandle? There are just two many questions to be answered for something like that to not be documented.

The patch for removing references to this from the perldocs was accepted with almost no disagreement. I was very surprised by that. Given how contentious the debate is, I was certain that more people on P5P would speak out against the patch.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.

In reply to Re^3: Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing? by Ovid
in thread Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing? by stvn

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks