The stupid question is the question not asked | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
So, for not too much work, we get a way to not break method chaining, don't have to use eval {} to catch broken code, don't need exceptions, and it can fit into what we're already doing with all of our other objects.
Would you mind going into a little more detail as to why method chaining without exceptions should be done? Most likely, you will still
Personally, I haven't ever seen the need for chaining methods like that. This may be because I haven't set my classes up in such a way as to provide for it, but wouldn't that be a more Perlish way of doing things? As Larry is quoted in the Cookbook, "The trick is to use Perl's strengths rather than its weaknesses." It sounds like you're trying to get another language's strength - method chaining - and shoehorning it into Perl without the infrastructure that goes along with it. I'm just worried that this will be a maintenance nightmare. I would hate to come along as a consultant and be handed this stuff that uses chaining out the wazoo and tries to get cute with an AUTOLOADed everything object that overrides undef or falsehood and ... See what I mean? Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing. In reply to Re: The Null Mull (or, when OO needs more O)
by dragonchild
|
|