> I was talking about the hypothetical situation where you're (re)using or > modifying a bunch of code or classes written by different people and you > constantly have to be aware of which self-thingie to use in which file or > package or whatever. Yeah, you can just glance up to the use ... > declaration, but it still seems a little like trying to make everyone > happy by avoiding the naming decision entirely. > > Too much B&D for a Monday? No. I *do* have sympathy with the desire for One True Way, but *only* if the access function is called C<self> (my own religion ;-). And *that's* the problem. I wouldn't be averse to C<self> as the default and C<use invocant> as a sop to the C<this>erites and C<$ME>ophiles. But *they* might be! :-) Damian
- RE: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() built... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... John Siracusa
- RE: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... Myers, Dirk
- RE: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with sel... John Siracusa
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with sel... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with sel... John Siracusa
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with sel... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with... Randal L. Schwartz