On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 17:46, Patrick R. Michaud <pmich...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > There's a third way:
> >
> > class B { ... } # introduce B as a class name without definition
> > class A { sub foo { B::bar } }
> >
> > class B { sub bar { A::foo } }
>
> It seems to me that this doesn't really solve the problems that will occur
> when people start making packages independently of eachother.
>
> Of course it can be solved by submitting patches to the other developer's
> code, but it seems inelegant.
I see it as not being much different that what already happens now
in most languages I deal with.
Assume the above lines of code are in different files -- one for A
and one for B. Presumably A has a reason for saying "class B { ... }"
instead of the more likely "use B;" -- i.e., the author of A knows
that it is using B, and that B is likely to refer back to A.
And in the above example, I'd expect the file containing the definition
of B to likewise have either a "use A;" or "class A { ... }"
declaration.
It ultimately comes down to the fact that Perl expects each module
to declare class names before they get used, unless the class
names are part of CORE.
Pm
