> Damian: > > The whole point of having BUILD() is to separate allocation > > concerns from initialization concerns.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, yary wrote: > And that's not so good, because it forces BUILD to be used for > initialization, and precludes initializing private attributes anywhere > else, like a "bless" called from the "new" method. Err, isn't that the point: BUILD is for initialization, and bless is for allocation? Except that "bless" also does pass-through for to the initializers, which confuses the mental model. Well, if it's going to do that, perhaps it could take just one parcel parameter? (I do find the notion of an inheritable "constructor" a bit odd, upside-down even. However one of the things I *like* about Perl5 is that a class's object factory doesn't have to be called "new"; instead it can have a name that's natural to the domain of the object: File.open, Socket.listen, Process.run, Timer.start, etc. And object factories can be "instance methods" too: IO.dup, Socket.accept, String.split, etc.) The idea of BUILDALL taking care of the hierarchy and each BUILD just plucking out the named args it needs is quite elegant, but there will invariably be corner cases where it doesn't fit, particularly if one mixes in unrelated classes that conflict on their parameter names. And yet, overriding BUILDALL in an inheritable fashion also seems wrong. One could revert to the Perl5 and C++ way of doing things: explicitly calling up the constructor chain. But then how do you make it clear that BUILDALL is NOT required? Is there an answer to this conundrum? -Martin
