* Orton, Yves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-03 17:27]:
> Thats because the apporach you are comparing it to is flawed.
>
> foreach (@{$self->{foo}||[]}) { ... }
>
> is the correct way to spell that I think.
Actually, no. See below.
> > If the 'foo' attribute hasn't been set to anything, then you
> > want an empty list to iterate over. With version C, that's
> > what you get.
>
> No. If $self->{foo} is undef you get an error with version C.
You're forgetting autovivification. If $self->{foo} is undef it
is coerced into a appropriate reftype.
> Nah, just make the get_ autopopulate an undef attribute on
> fetch. That way its not done unless is actually being used by
> external code.
Yes, but what with? You can't know whether the attempt to access
an undef attribute is inside an array deref, a hash deref,
outside any deref contexts at all, or wherever. That's why I
proposed having a get_attr_with_default.
I did a quick test writing an lvalue sub; I was hoping that if
get_attribute was one, and used in a deref context, then Perl
would DWIM. Unfortunately, it does not.
> Personally I wouldnt have get_foo and set_foo. its too much
> like java or VB for me.
Dito..
> Seems like you think its useful. Aristotle didnt tell you it
> was stupid.
Well, to be clear: I don't like the idea.
Because just as you said, having a good ::InsideOut would kill
*all* birds with one stone - what this module does and what
several others as well do (modules like the one that ties the
hash and prepends the package name on all accesses to a
traditional hashref $self - I can't remember what it's called).
On the other hand, we _don't_ have ::InsideOut so being
pragmatic, I'm saying that maybe it's not a bad idea to have this
in the meantime..
--
Regards,
Aristotle
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
