Jonathan Worthington wrote:

"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Like the decision about which side of the road cars should drive on,
it really doesn't matter *which* choice is taken, as long as
*something* is decided.

The only thing is, there already is a decided way to do it so far as I can see...

I think the thing most people see wrong with $?SELF is that it's a huffman level of 6, all shifted (on std US keyboards, at least). It's a 7 when you add the dot. I'm not sure if it deserves a huffman level of 1 (a la ^), but I would think 2 or 3 is merited. While I agree almost entirely with Damian's post, I have to say that these days it's annoyingly common for projects to force a OO paradigm. In the OO code I write, there tend to be a handful of "heavy" methods, which tend not to call other methods, and a heaping handful of "light" 1-5 line wrapper methods which coordinate the calling of the heavy methods. (The heavy methods tend to be "private" and the workhorses, the light methods provide the public interface). I'm certain that others structure their code differently.


That said, what I believe I've heard as the major hold up all the shortened versions is that there is no general consensus on what it should be. So I propose a list of the options, and have people sound off as being Favorable/Neutral/Unfavorable on each, to get a feel for where people on this list actually stand on the issue.

Here's the list as I've heard them:


$?SELF, and nothing else by default.

$_ bound to $?SELF at start of method.

o.

O.

this.

self.

me.

^

->

_

 (an idea I just had. would likely need a 7-bit option as well)

..


As for myself, I'm unfavorable to the first option, favorable to ->, , and me., neutral to the rest.



-- Rod Adams

Reply via email to