> >>>>> "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. :) >
I imagine it is just the cargo culting because of lack of examples like Randal's. Ironically I tend to fall in the "programming explicitly" camp where I want my code to reflect exactly what it does, but I am in the cargo cult group because *everything* I had read explained it that way. Having seen Randal's argument, knowing my own biases, I do prefer his idea, but I also consider myself an advanced average Perl programmer (that is, certainly not near guru status) and so I probably reflect more closely what the average and newbie programmers will have seen documented and the reasons behind it. I also think Randal's example usage while perfect is intimidating to a new or average programmer, there is just an extra call going on there that to someone that understands it, it doesn't matter, but to a novice it is something that doesn't look quite right, so "hiding" the same thing in the constructor is just the easy, lazy (in the bad way) approach for the more advanced author of the module. In the above I am referring to: my $new_obj = ref($obj)->new; The indirection is difficult to read at first so back loading it is just easier for the user, but as Randal points out is not forcing them to explicitly ask for what they want, where as the above is, and some of us prefer that. However I don't feel like running out and updating all of my modules, but I am going to change my templates ;-).... So what would it take to get Randal's view at least added to the docs, and a good description of why that view is held? I do have to differ with the opinion about new, if you really are just constructing an object then to me it still makes sense as a name, but in the case of DBI you are constructing an object *and* performing an action, so the 'connect' name makes sense. To me it would also make sense if there was (and maybe there is): my $dbi = new DBI; my $dbh = $dbi->connect; Because in this case you are *just* constructing an object, and then *just* connecting... But this assumes you throw out the history of the corruption of the name 'new' both as a cloning method and as "let's do more than just create an object, lets also connect to a server, read a file, etc." which somehow I don't think Randal will let us ;-) (and he probably is right not to).... Just my ranting on the subject.... http://danconia.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
