Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2008
Ricardo SIGNES schrieb:
> * Reini Urban <rurban@x-ray.at> [2008-05-07T06:19:20]
>> 2008/5/6 Ricardo SIGNES <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org>:
>>> A truly anemic start would be to write classes with no methods save for
>>> AUTOLOAD. Unfortunately, AUTOLOAD does not catch universal methods. This
>>> is worse than just having to write a "can" and "isa." If anything in your
>>> process loads UNIVERSAL::{moniker,require} or Sub::Install, or any of a
>>> number of other things that muck with UNIVERSAL, your code will change in
>>> bizarre ways.
>> I would just write something along "no autoload"
>> Autovification of method calls should be pragmatized, being able to turn it
>> off.
>
> One of us is confused.
>
> What I meant was "I can't use AUTOLOAD to autovivify /all/ methods, because it
> will never be able to autovivify methods found in UNIVERSAL."
>
> It seems like you're suggesting a solution to the opposite problem.
Not really. A better object system should throw away AUTOLOAD
and autovification of methods. Just as kurila did.
Linda W started a thread some time ago about the problems with
destructivily checking methods inheritance. (can is destructive)
Not possible with perl5 semantics because of AUTOLOAD.
So I proposed "no autoload" and on top of that write your Class:Metameta.
It would let you have a clear distinction between class and object methods.
--
Reini Urban
http://phpwiki.org/ http://murbreak.at/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next