Still Not sure if I agree with myself.

[drieux]

Currently I am in the midst of an argument
with myself about tactics and strategies
for doing CGI coding. The side effect of
which lead me to wonder about some prejudices
I seem to have about when, where and how to
cut over to using/creating a Perl Module for
code re-use. Some of this comes from debating
ideas from "Learning Perl  Objects, References & Modules.
cf: <http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/lrnperlorm/>
One of my first question is - why the 'closure' eg:

{
        package FOO;
        ....
}
Or is that simply to make 'clear' that outside of
the Closure it is still package 'main'???
The demonstration code that goes with my longer
write up of my 'issues' -
cf <http://www.wetware.com/drieux/CS/Proj/TPFH/a_bci.html>
started out Strictly as a simple illustratoin of
how a command line interface piece of code CAN be written.
Unfortunately I decided to take that other look,
and hack around with other ways of doing things,
a "brief coding interlude" which as most of us know is similar
to a 'brief psychotic episode' but occasionally less functional.
The gooder news is that this has the look and feel
of a 'faster' way to go about playing with ideas
that one thinks need to be culled out into a
separate stand alone perl module. The information
section of course is that I am not sure that 'abusing'
the 'can()' the way I did will survive more than
that demonstration piece of code.
Which leads me to my second set of question,

        as a general habit I tend to make 'private-ish' methods
        with the "_" prefix such as
		sub _some_private_method { .... }

is there some 'general access' mechanism by which one can
ask for the LIST of all methods that an 'object' CanDo???
Or should one have a 'register_of_parser_methods' approach
that one can query?
ciao
drieux
---

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]