Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2015
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 02:33:17AM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> On 18 December 2015 at 02:15, Lukas Mai <plokinom@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Am 18.12.2015 um 01:39 schrieb demerphq:
> >>
> >> On 18 December 2015 at 00:14, Chad Granum <exodist7@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> new patch
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Chad Granum <exodist7@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No sooner did I send that then I realize did could do it better with 1
> >>>> less loop. Will attach new patch shortly.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have one concern with the patch. It uses ref($foo) eq "HASH".
> >>
> >> I think it should import reftype() from Scalar::Util and use reftype()
> >> instead.
> >>
> >> Or possibly be switched to use UNIVERSAL::isa($foo,"HASH").
> >>
> >> IOW, what happens if $foo is blessed?
> >
> >
> > reftype is for deliberately breaking encapsulation of objects.
>
> That is one view, but one I consider unperlish.
>
> If someone wants to pass you a blessed hashref where you ask for a
> hashref why should you care? Its their code. Its their encapsulation
> that is being violated, or not. IMO its not a libraries job to decide
> whether such things are ok or not.
>
> How does the line go? "Perl would prefer you dont enter its living
> room without permission, but it isnt going to stand at the door with a
> shotgun to make sure you dont."
Hmm. Not sure whether that line is relevant here -- it's more
"We'll enter your living room, because you don't have a gun".
Disallowing blessed references means you keep that slot open
for objects. That is,
use Some::Module 'some_method' => $obj;
remains available for some future use.
But I guess this is all just a theoretical exercise. How many people
would pass in "bless {-as => 'fnord'}, 'Whatever'" anyway?
Abigail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next