|The stupid question is the question not asked|
Re: Re: Tutorial: Introduction to Object-Oriented Programmingby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Dec 13, 2002 at 17:59 UTC||Need Help??|
And no. I had no insights as to any of the limitations.
Until now I have had no real use for OO in my exploration of Perl, so i have basically avoided it. I have now started something that would benefit from OO which happens to coincide with this thread and your post.
I read a couple of earlier peices on light-weight/inside-out objects, as well as several peices by you and others on the merits of OO in perl, so I just wanted to know what I was getting into. You can see my first attempt as using your method at (my?) problem with re-blessed references(?) though if your interested you'd better look at adrianh's correction of my idiocies at Re: Re: (my?) problem with re-blessed references(?).
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on using lvalue subs for the accessor/mutators? I've long prefered the syntax of one subname per attribute that returns the value optionally setting it if a value is passed. I hated the whole "should it be set_x/put_x or set_x/get_x debate" that rages still in the Java discussion groups. Another totally pointless, "religious-type", waste of time IMO. I also hate having to look up which convention is used for every attribute of every class I use.
The lvalue sub seems to me to be the logical conclusion to this. One attribute, one name. Name it to use it. Assign to it to set it. In-line assign and use just like any other var. Makes perfect sense to me, but I'm sure that others have a different opinion.
Examine what is said, not who speaks.