Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>
> >>>>> "HB" == Hildo Biersma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> HB> There's a reason people use objects - if only to give the user a handle
> HB> to wrap the module's state. Any module that supports both OO and
> HB> procedural usage is basically a singleton - only one instance exists at
> HB> any one time (at least in procedural mode). For most modules, this
> HB> doesn't and shouldn't make sense.
>
> Sorry, this doesn't make sense. Please explain the difference between
>
> $foo->twiddle and twiddle $foo
>
> Or to go to a more specific domain
>
> $fh = new File::Text "blah" open($fh, "blah")
> $txt = $fh->read $txt = <$fh>
>
> etc.
>
> There is nothing preventing a procedural interface. One only needs a
> handle.
The original discussion was in the context of providing the same API for
object and method calls. Of course I am aware that subroutines, using
handles, can do the same as objects - after all, that's the way objects
are implemented. of objects.
To get back at my earlier statement: if you want to provide the same API
for object calls and procedural calls, in the fashion of CGI, where the
procedural interface does not provide a handle, then you're basically
tied to a singleton.
Hildo
