comment on

Personally, I think that going for this kind of hard encapsulation is self-defeating. The whole point of OOP is to decouple your code. If your colleague is violating this decoupling, then it is incumbent upon you to educate your colleague.

We've had this discussion before but I just can't let it go :-)

I agree when the violation is deliberate. The problem with the "normal" perl OO model is that you can interfere accidentally with "private" methods and attribute.

Even if they completely stick to the documented API they can be bitten if there is a change to the private implementation if it is done in the naive perl OO style.

The good news is that, in my experience, it doesn't happen very often. However, I'm still very much looking forward to being able to get around this nicely when perl6 hits the streets.

In reply to Re^2: Encapsulation through stringification - a variation on flyweight objects by adrianh
in thread Encapsulation through stringification - a variation on flyweight objects by robartes

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