No such thing as a small change | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Why not mix and match the OO and the functional? Maybe you have a standard class for performing generic operations on trees, but certain tree-types require particular ops so you can just field those out to coderefs e.g
This has the benefits of re-usability, flexibility and all those funky OO features. Or you could declare the functions straight into the symbol table of said package e.g Gaining all the benefits of being in a class while still giving the control to the user[1]. HTH
_________ [1] I'm sure I should've used a bunch of OO buzzwords there ... ah well ;-) In reply to Re: Standardized Interface Design for Search tree
by broquaint
|
|