Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2015
Peter John Acklam wrote: > (Pardon me if it is considered bad form to bring up an old discussion, > but I would like to keep this discussion in one place.) > > I realized that converting Math::BigInt into a subclass will make it > impossible to use the following non-OO syntax, which is still supported: > > $ perl -MMath::BigInt -wle 'print Math::BigInt::badd(3, 5)' > 8 > > Even my soon 20 year old version of The Camel Book does not mention this > syntax, so I doubt it is much used anymore, but there could stille be > some old code that will break if this syntax no longer works. > > Way back one could also use > > $ perl -MMath::BigFloat -wle 'print Math::BigFloat::fadd(3, 5)' > +8E+0 > > but this non-OO syntax was no longer possible when Tels' re-written > version of the Math-BigInt distribution was merged into core Perl with > the commit 58cde26e9566cfa700a6d18945c4428f22c6be85 from Jun 16 2001. > > In essence, if I go on with my idea, Math::BigInt::badd(3, 5) will have > to be written as Math::BigInt -> badd(3, 5). Is that such a big problem > that I should leave the code as it is? > > Peter I am not addressing Math::* specifically, but plain sub calls are faster/less complicated than method calls which use @ISA/method cache/other APIs/etc. Unless you know why you are using OOP, and your downstream code actually uses OOP-ness (abstract base class), dont use OOP or convert functional code to OOP for the sake for religious purity.Thread Previous