On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 00:39, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Nathan Byrd wrote:
> [...]
[...]
>
> This patch does nothing, but replaced array based object with hash based one,
> right? that's fine with me. Thank you.
>
Yep - almost seems anti-climatic, doesn't it? :-)
> re: No accessors provided. So if tomorrow I fancy to change some key names, I
> can't do that since it'll break sub-classes, right? What if we need to add a
> new key? this may clobber the sub-classes private keys?
Yeah, that's the downside to no accessors with this (deleting or
renaming keys could break sub-classes). Myself I think its probably
made up for by simplicity though, especially since if we added accessors
then it would then be the accessors that we couldn't rename or delete,
etc without breaking sub-classes.
> If so, at least I'd
> suggest the subclasses to take safety precautions and name their keys as
> whatever_unique_string_ + attribute, e.g. par_foo, par_bar?
Actually, what I did in my module was to take it a step further, and use
my fields like $self->{PARDATA}{foo}, $self->{PARDATA}{bar} etc so there
was only one key to worry about (not too worried about performance or
further sub-classing in my module which digs through zip files :-), but
fields like par_foo, par_bar, etc would work fine too.
Thanks,
> --
> Nathan Byrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
