----- Original Message ----
From: Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > As you can see, I called SUPER::startup instead of SUPER::setup.
> [snip]
>
> Not that it helps solve your problem - but I tend to use multiple
> setup routines rather than inheritance to add extra set up code to a
> class. I generally find it reads more cleanly since I can give my
> methods more intention revealing names.
The issue I have with that is that the setup routines run in alphabetical order
and I was surprised to discover that another programmer wrote this as a result:
sub zzzteardown : Tests(teardown) { ... }
I didn't really like that, but since I'm quite happy that others are now
writing tests, I don't complain. Still, carefully choosing setup names to run
in alphabetical order is frustrating to me, so I prefer the superclass
dispatching.
> You could, of course, use something like chromatic's SUPER and write
> it as:
D'oh! What a bloody obvious answer. Thanks :)
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
