>>>>> "SHC" == Shawn H Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SHC> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>> * Mr. Shawn H. Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-24 00:50]:
>>> my $sub = ( exists $dispatch{ $key } && ref( $dispatch{ $key } ) eq
'CODE' )
>>> ? $dispatch{ $key }
>>> : $dispatch{ 'default' };
>>>
>>> Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean computers don't
>>> hate you :)
>> So why did you skip the check for whether the default value is
>> a CODE ref?
SHC> Because I don't like dispatch tables. When I see them I want to
SHC> convert the whole thing to objects and starting thinking about
SHC> inheritance and polymorphism. Which will take care of such
SHC> problems at "compile" time.
and how would an object remove the need for a dispatch table? you can't
always map keys to methods and OO isn't needed in all cases. you can
also do dispatch tables inside a class and again much simpler than OO or
polymorphism. inheritance is right out as it is baggage in most
designs. people think OO eq inheritance and that is so wrong. i prefer
message passing and its flavor of polymorphism any day over inheritance
and its rigid class hierarchies and dependency trees.
SHC> But this thread is about hashes not objects.
SHC> (And I still think computers hate me.)
not as much as i hate (but have used) inheritance. i should start a side
thread for this: ever write an OO system where one class ISA and HASA
another class at the same time? i have and for a good reason and it
works so elegantly. :)
thanx,
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
