>>>>> "R" == R Joseph Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
R> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> R> [Randal] R> ... R> The point is that R> $instance->new R> could mean either "clone", or "make one of the same class as". You R> don't need it for "make one of the same class as", because you've got: R> (ref $instance)->new R> to do that explicitly. And if you really wanted that to do clone, R> CALL IT CLONE, don't call it ->new. R> It obscures more than it clarifies, and hence is a *bad* name R> for an instance method. R> ... R> [/Randal] Thanks for reposting that. I'm unwavering on this. I've heard all counter arguments, and am unconvinced. So I continue to argue that ->new is a *class* method only. This is not to say that I believe methods can't be both class and instance methods. In "perldoc perlboot", I show a sensible use of such methods. It's just that particularly, ->new on an instance can mean either "clone" or "make an empty one of the same class as", and since it can easily mean either, it's best not to burden ->new with double duty when it only adds confusion. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
