The problem is that A::B is both a package name and a sub name. The difference is whether or not Perl knows A::B is a sub when A::B->new() is compiled.
When barewords are involved like in
A::B->new()
Perl must guess at what it means. Perl usually guesses the above means
"A::B"->new()
but if A::B is known to be a function, Perl will take that as a hint that you meant
A::B()->new()
where A::B is presumably a function that returns a class name or an object.
So why does test1.pl know A::B is a function name while test2.pl doesn't? The order in which they compile sub A::B relative to A::B->new varies.
test1.pl
1. Compile use A;
2. Execute require A;
3. ...
4. Compile sub B { ... }
5. ...
6. Execute A->import();
7. Compile my $test = A::B->new(test => 1); as A::B()->new
8. Execute my $test = A::B->new(test => 1);
test2.pl
1. Compile require A;
2. Compile my $test = A::B->new(test => 1); as "A::B"->new
3. Execute require A;
4. ...
5. Compile sub B { ... }
6. ...
7. Execute my $test = A::B->new(test => 1);
Also see recent thread Bug or inconsitency? FQN of Package and sub name identical.
PS - Please use <c>...</c> around your code instead of <pre>...</pre>. It handles escaping, auto-wrapping, and makes the code easier to download.
-
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.
|