Re: Module provides both of functional interface and object-oriented one

[Anonymous Monk]

I concur, it's bad practice. The split over packages is brittle and unnecessary. Done with common modules (untested):

package Foo;
use Moose;
use Sub::Exporter -setup => {exports => [qw(procedure1 procedure2)]};

# OO stuff comes here

has some_attribute …

sub some_method {
    my ($self, @args) = @_;
    …
}

# procedural stuff comes here

sub procedure1 {
    my $self = __PACKAGE__->new; # if needed
    my @args = @_;
    …
}

sub procedure2 {
    my $self = __PACKAGE__->new; # if needed
    my @args = @_;
    …
}

1;

Usage from the main code:

use Foo qw(procedure1);

procedure1(foo bar quux);

my $f = Foo->new(some_attribute => baz);
$f->some_method;

[anazawa]

Thanks for your suggestion. I feel it's modern to use Moose. Actually, I want to use my module in CGI environment, and so I think it's heavy to load Moose. In addition, I'm a Perl beginner. I want to know how to implement above features in an old-fashioned way.

[tobyink]

There are light-weight alternatives to Moose, which use very similar syntax, making it easy to upgrade/downgrade as needed. From heaviest to lightest, there's Moose (of course), Mouse, Moo and Mo.

The lightest-weight (Mo) should have enough features to implement the suggestion here - Re: Module provides both of functional interface and object-oriented one.

[anazawa]

Thanks for your comment. I didn't know what Mo is. I can't decide whether to use Moose because I have never used :) I have to learn, anyway.