>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Grazzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> Now, I don't particularly like "$obj->new", but it's not really "wrong" Steve> either. If you want to let people call your constructor that way, then Steve> go ahead and use "ref($proto) || $proto". And conversely, if you think Steve> "$obj->new" is an abomination, then just use "my $class = shift". Steve> But either way, make an informed decision. Don't cargo-cult it in Steve> because it's in the examples in perltoot. And don't cargo-cult it out Steve> because Randal smacks you whenever you use "ref($proto)" in public. Well, if you want to obscure your code, go ahead. But I thought real world code wasn't about JAPHs and Golf and Obfu-Perl. So, it has no place in *real world* code. That's all I'm saying. It obscures more than it helps, and shouldn't be carbon-copied into every constructor out of habit. If you use it, DOCUMENT THE HELL OUT OF IT, because it comes out of left field. Note that I have no problem with other method names being used for both class methods and instance methods. It's only the highly overloaded term "new" that I'm referencing here. In fact, I can make a (albeit weaker) case that "new" is the wrong name for a constructor anyway, and that constructors should be named as natural verbs, like DBI's "connect". But nobody from the C++ camp would ever support me on that, because their minds are already corrupt. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
