Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"

Re^2: It's a dog, but what kind? (polymorphism , in Perl OO)

by tye (Sage)
on Mar 23, 2004 at 20:42 UTC ( #339178=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to •Re: It's a dog, but what kind? (polymorphism , in Perl OO)
in thread It's a dog, but what kind? (polymorphism , in Perl OO)

my $class=ref($proto)||­$proto;

I understand the reasons to avoid this construct.

But if you avoid it, then you need to replace it with something. Unfortunately, although I often see this construct derided, I very seldom see suggestions for what to replace that line with (even when I come out and ask for it). The most straightforward replacement is unacceptable to me. See Re^2: A few Perl OOP questions. (disparaging) for why.

I also consider the objections to this to be rather minor in impact in a lot of practical situations and appreciate the "sloppy" advantages of $obj->new() in a lot of pracitcal situations. So I consider this construct to be a net win for simple OO Perl classes in many cases.

I also provide an alternative to it in (tye)Re: Private Class Methods.

- tye        

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
•Re: Re^2: It's a dog, but what kind? (polymorphism , in Perl OO)
by merlyn (Sage) on Mar 23, 2004 at 20:58 UTC
    From the article you can't see yet:
    But here's the problem. When I survey experienced object-oriented programmers, and ask them what they expect new means when called on an instance (without looking at the implementation), the result usually divides rather equally into three camps: those that go "huh, why would you do that" and think it should throw an error, those that say that it would clone the object, and those that say it would copy the object's class but not the contents.

    So, no matter what you intend if you make your new do one of those three things, two thirds of the people who look at it will be wrong. It's not intuitive. So, don't write code like that, and especially don't just cargo-cult that from the manpage into your code. If you want an object like another object, use ref explicitly, as shown above. If you want a clone, put cloning code into your package, and call clone, as we saw earlier.

    -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
    Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

      Yes, as I said, I understand the objection. I note that you don't quote what your alternative is nor acknowledge the problem that I was bringing up.

      Did you give a concrete class when you asked your question? As I've said, I agree that there is a problem in theory, and that sometimes there is a problem in practice. But I've also found that, in practice, exactly what it means to get a 'new' object from an object of a *specific* class is often quite clear (and I don't think it usually means what you appear to be referring to as "clone" nor "copy").

      You appear to be using "clone" to mean something close to "copy all of the object's attributes" and using "copy" (based on emphasis) to mean something close to "copy none of the object's attributes".

      I don't think I've ever seen people talking about classes as having two types of attributes (that I'll define shortly). So I'm not surprised that asking questions in the abstract fail to get people to think about splitting attributes into two types. In practice, for many Perl classes, I think this split happens quite naturally.

      I'll call the two types 'basis' attributes and 'convenience' attributes. The basis attributes are items that must be passed in to new(). The convenience attributes have more to do with the personal preferences of the user of the module.

      $obj->new( $basis1, $basis2, ... ) creates a new object based on the passed-in basis attributes but copying the convenience attributes from $obj.

      Now, some classes have attributes that don't clearly fall into one of these categories, and I suspect in that such cases the meaning of 'instance new' would not be as clear.

      And I suspect that people who think $obj->new( ... ) should be "clone" are either thinking of convenience attributes or aren't thinking of the "..." part while people who think $obj->new( ... ) should do ref($obj)->new( ... ) aren't thinking of convenience attributes (that perhaps are more common in Perl OO than in other flavors of OO).

      - tye        

        The alternative is that if you want a copy or clone operation, they should be seperate methods from the constructor.

        : () { :|:& };:

        Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://339178]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2017-04-30 05:35 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    I'm a fool:

    Results (534 votes). Check out past polls.