Juerd Waalboer schrieb: > Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-15 0:48 (+0200): >>> The Perl Way: >>> $object.foo() calls the method called "foo". >>> $object.$foo() calls the method that is in the variable $foo. >> My way: >> someref = &somemethod >> object.someref() >> Of course you could argue that you don't know in advance, if "object" >> has a method with that name, so you cannot manually avoid the conflict. > > Indeed. Now you have to know your object very well, and avoid all of its > method names for variable names. For example, an HTTP::Request object > has a .headers method. If Your Way were in effect, I could no longer > safely use the name "headers" for my own variables, and then still call > the "headers" method on the object.
You are right, it would not be practical to prohibit variable names to be the same like any other object method names. But still I can't imagine a useful example where I want so call a method of object A on object B, which doesn't have this method. Would it be a good idea to call methods on objects, that never thought of this methods? If it wasn't allowed to do so (because it may be not a good idea at all -- i don't know), we wouldn't have that problem: Storing a reference to a method of object A, that will only be called on object A could be done like this: my ref = A.method ref() > Perl allows both avoiding clashes and not-avoiding clashes. Your way > only strictly requires the former programming style. And since my > preferred style is different, I'm glad you're not designing Perl 6. I'm also glad not to do that as I don't think that I'd have the knowledge to do that. I just offer my thoughts. -- Thomas Wittek http://gedankenkonstrukt.de/ Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
