http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=577913


in reply to Re: RFC: A Beginners Guide to Fuzzy Rules-Based Systems
in thread RFC: A Beginners Guide to Fuzzy Rules-Based Systems

I'm sorry, but after many years of using many languages, I am not at all inclined to consider $f = Foo->new() as if it were a method on the type. I will continue to use $f = new Foo() as if it were an operator built into the language, because it feels more literate and readable.

Even with the same sort of bugs, I don't see a lot of people clamoring for a shift to $fh->print @list syntax.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: RFC: A Beginners Guide to Fuzzy Rules-Based Systems
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Oct 12, 2006 at 19:16 UTC
    I'm sorry, but after many years of using many languages, I am not at all inclined to consider $f = Foo->new() as if it were a method on the type.

    What does how other languages work have to do with how Perl works? In Perl, it's a class method. It's not a keyword.

    I will continue to use $f = new Foo() as if it were an operator built into the language, because it feels more literate and readable.

    Okay, but good luck debugging it when it fails in weird and unexpected ways.

    Even with the same sort of bugs, I don't see a lot of people clamoring for a shift to $fh->print @list syntax.

    I suspect you don't know why the indirect object notation can fail then. It's a lot more difficult to call print with filehandle and a bareword as arguments, but PBP suggests instead print {$fh} @list.