> So this:
>
> my $class = "My::Class";
> print("$class");
>
> is:
>
> main::print("My::Class");
>
> ???
Not actually what I was suggesting. I'm going to have to go back to
Clear Examples School because somehow mine always end up confusing
issues inadvertently.
Remember, the techniques I suggest are only used if a local package
function is not found. So:
package MyPackage;
sub func { ... }
func($object, @args); # MyPackage::func($object, @args)
package main;
sub somefunc { ... }
use MyPackage;
my $mypkg = new MyPackage;
func($mypkg, @args); # $mypkg->func(@args)
So, the first one will always be MyPackage::func, and the last one will
always be $object->func, because there is no main::func.
However, note that this only applies when you include the ","! If you
were to use the same exact example code from above, but explicitly use
the indirect object syntax:
func($object @args); # $object->func(@args)
Then this will always be forked because there is no comma between the
$object and @args.
I really hope I'm making sense. Looking at the RFC I realize it's
nowhere near clear enough because these two cases are really different.
So here are the two things I'm proposing, separated:
1. Allow the ()'s to enclose the indirect object.
Under this syntax, these two are equivalent:
$q = new CGI (@args);
$q = new(CGI @args);
This requires an extra check for main::CGI first,
and only if main::CGI(@args) cannot be called is
CGI->new(@args) attempted.
2. Allow a comma between the object and the args.
With this, the above would become more flexible
and these two would be equivalent:
$q = new CGI (@args);
$q = new(CGI, @args);
Here, a check for main::new is made. If it doesn't
exist, then CGI->new(@args) is attempted.
I think these are both doable. Hopefully this clarifies what I'm trying
to get at.
-Nate
