On 07 Aug 2000 13:57:14 +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
>Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The problem is that you can't safely subclass a class, without examining
>> it's source, just to make sure that your instance fields don't clash
>> with any private fields of the mother class.
>
>
2000-08-07-19:22:59 Michael Fowler:
> Is $CURRENT_PACKAGE any different, value-wise, than __PACKAGE__?
I'm guessing no, unless I've misunderstood something from the
preceeding discussion.
> Is there a reason to prefer it?
I suppose some folks who want to do a truly stunningly huge amount
of thi
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 01:57:14PM +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
> package Foo;
>
> sub new
> {
> bless { "${CURRENT_PACKAGE}name" => 'Simpson' ...
> }
>
> ...where $CURRENT_PACKAGE is a special variable automatically set
> to...guess what? ;-)
Is $CURRENT_PACKAGE any different, value-
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:22:03AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>> I'm more in favor of a mechanism that makes it easy to build field
>> names from the package name, for those rare cases where you want
>> scoped fields.
[snip]
> See the Tie::Securehash module for a variation on this theme.
> Also
> I'm more in favor of a mechanism that makes it easy to build field
> names from the package name, for those rare cases where you want
> scoped fields. There were discussions about this a couple of years ago
> on p5p. For example:
>
> package Foo;
>
> sub new { bless { "
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is that you can't safely subclass a class, without examining
> it's source, just to make sure that your instance fields don't clash
> with any private fields of the mother class.
Well...let's think twice. What has the reputatin of being a bug
One of the major problems with Perl's OO, is something I haven't seen
mentioned in these lists, until now. So I'll bring it to your attention
here and now.
The problem is that you can't safely subclass a class, without examining
it's source, just to make sure that your instance fields don't clash
