Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks RobOMonk
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Building an anonymous subroutine

by Anonymous Monk
on Aug 13, 2002 at 08:39 UTC ( [id://189759]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

This is an archived low-energy page for bots and other anonmyous visitors. Please sign up if you are a human and want to interact.


in reply to Re: Building an anonymous subroutine
in thread Building an anonymous subroutine

Closures upon closures is not intrinsically easier or harder to keep organized than subclasses upon subclasses.

They just organize naturally in different ways. If a clean OO model fits your problem, then OO naturally channels you. If it doesn't, then using closures is better than trying to fight OO into an imitation of what you would do more naturally with closures. Particularly so in Perl where writing any OO involves so much infrastructure.

BTW your extra method-call hooks could be replaced with a single method that is intended to be called from subclasses with SUPER. Less code and infrastructure, same result.

  • Comment on Re: Re: Building an anonymous subroutine

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://189759]
help
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Notices?
    hippoepoptai's answer Re: how do I set a cookie and redirect was blessed by hippo!
    erzuuliAnonymous Monks are no longer allowed to use Super Search, due to an excessive use of this resource by robots.