|go ahead... be a heretic|
Re: Beyond Inside-Outby xdg (Monsignor)
|on May 30, 2007 at 11:48 UTC||Need Help??|
I question whether this statement is really a correct characterization of inside-out objects:
# - No method of an inside-out class accesses (de-referrences) the body of its objects directly.
When using inside-out classes for 'black box' inheritance, this is often exactly what is desired, e.g. subclassing an IO::File or other unusual base object type.
Overall, it's an interesting approach and you've clearly given it a good deal of thought -- but I don't really understand how this is "beyond" inside-out objects -- rather it's an extra level of indirection and I'm not entirely clear what the benefits are or whether those offset the 'costs'.
On potential costs/downsides:
I'd be interested in a concise summary of the features/benefits. Right now I really only see one:
(Though I personally question whether that is really a net savings in characters typed if accessors will need to be defined for most fields anyway or if some sort of field-name validation is added.)
Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.