>>>>> "BM" == Brandon McCaig <bamcc...@gmail.com> writes:
BM> my $obj = Foo::Bar->new; BM> ...instead. It seems better to just avoid the name "new" entirely so BM> it isn't confused with other languages. I think it will be less BM> confusing for people that way. I know that I found it confusing to see BM> the C++-like syntax, only to have people on this list discourage it BM> and say that it doesn't do what we think it does. I'm not fixed on BM> 'create', but generally I name my "constructor" functions in C BM> "${struct_name}_create" (where $struct_name is the name of the BM> struct), so it just seems logical that I would name my constructors in BM> Perl 'create' as well (after all, that's essentially what they're BM> doing). perl isn't strict about many things but the perl community does have many conventions. one of which is using the sub new for object constructors. you will not get far in the perl world if you buck the tide of things like that. any other good ideas you may have will be tainted by this one. use new() and drop the create() stuff. also there is a perl builtin called creat() (a wrapper to the unix syscall). so your name has even more confusion potential. uri -- Uri Guttman ------ u...@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com -- ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------ --------- 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/