On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:03:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nicholas Clark)
wrote in news:20021105210303.GC280@;Bagpuss.unfortu.net:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:53:38PM -0000, Soren A wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In ExtUtils::MM_Unix, in the sub pm_to_blib(), there is:
>
>> if ($l + $la + $lb + @a / 2 > 200) { # limit line length
>> _pm_to_blib_flush($self, $autodir, \$r, \@a, \$l);
>> }
>> push @a, $pm, $blib;
>> $l += $la + $lb;
>> }
>> _pm_to_blib_flush($self, $autodir, \$r, \@a, \$l);
>
>> Why is the list of parameters being passed to _pm_to_blib_flush()
>> with "$self" as the first argument? That makes "$self" appear TWICE
>> to the latter sub. Once, implicitly, as in any method invocation;
>> and a second time because of the explicit argument.
>
> I don't think that your analysis is correct.
Darn right it isn't, it's stupid. Stupid mistake (I'll excuse myself based
on fatigue).
> _pm_to_blib_flush is being called as a regular subroutine. In perl5
> there is no implicit invocant in $_[0] if a sub is called as a regular
> subroutine, even if it functions as a method in a class.
Of course not. What was I thinking? Still, a comment in the code would have
been a really nice idea -- to the effect of something like: "this sub gets
used as a regular, non-method function".
> I believe that the code above is written that way to fake a method
> call of the form
>
> $self->_pm_to_blib_flush($autodir, \$r, \@a, \$l);
>
> which does end up with the invocant object as $_[0] inside the
> subroutine.
Good grief, I have to express "I wonder why"? I am sure there are reasons
and it's clear how full of hacks MM is. Sheesh tho. Anyway, I used it as a
method call once I cleared up my little problem.
> I hope that either I removed the spam protection in your e-mail
> address correctly, or that you are subscribed to the list, else you
> may never see this reply.
Thanks, Nicholas, I am in fact subscribed to the List and I appreciate your
kind reply.
Soren A
--
--*perlspinr*--
**Helping to consume excess Internet bandwidth since 1996**
