>>>>> "SB" == Steve Bertrand <st...@ibctech.ca> writes:
SB> Jenda Krynicky wrote: >> >> Use whatever feels more natural to you. SB> I really think I'll stick with OO for consistency throughout, even if SB> it's just for the simple purpose of having a consistent SB> my $self = shift; SB> ...as the first statement of every subroutine definition. but if there is nothing passed in, what do you do? compare these examples: Foo::bar() ; Foo->bar() ; what is passed in @_ in those two cases? one is a procedural call and the other is an OO style call. SB> Many of the methods that could-be functions create external objects SB> anyway, and in the event I do need the module to generate an object, I'm SB> already set up for it. class level subs (no object is passed in nor any class name is needed) is common enough. it isn't a faux pas in most cases but a style issue. making a basic procedural sub into a class method for no reason means you pass useless data (the class name) and ignore it in the sub. that to me is a poor API. SB> Besides... I'm at a stage where I'd rather carry on with Perl BCP and SB> coding, as opposed to changing gears and learning how the Exporter SB> works. Uri's suggestion of the '_' private prefix keeps things well in SB> check. that _ prefix isn't my idea, it is in perlstyle i believe and is a common convention for internal methods (those only called by other methods in the current class). class methods are external and shouldn't use that (see the second call above). uri -- Uri Guttman ------ u...@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com -- ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------ --------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html --------- --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com --------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
