Adam Rice wrote: > Quoting Randal L. Schwartz (merlyn@stonehenge.com): > > I'm thinking of writing "Randal's Object Oriented Tutorial" > > (perlroot.pod) based on a summary of what I'm now teaching in my OO > > Perl class (and some of what I learned reading Damian's forthcoming > > book), but sadly it will probably never make the standard Perl > > distribution. > > I had to learn Java before I could understand Perl OO. Which made > > > sub new { > > my $this = shift; my $class = ref $this || $this; bless { @_ }, $class; > > } > > all the more mindblowing. But now I've been using Perl OO for a few years, > it seems strange to go back to languages where the constructor is a special > case. I wonder if it's possible to have a statically-compiled language where > constructors are ordinary static methods? Does such a beast exist? I don't why it shouldn't be possible in a staticly-compiled language, but I've never seen such a beast either. But then again most languages are really fascist about this sort of thing. > The disadvantage of Perl's flexibility here is when people abuse it, with > strangely-named constructors (Tgetent in Term::Cap) or things like new2 (in > LWPng). I guess natural selection prefers modules that don't waste a > programmers time, though. > > > If I get some encouragement, I'll write perlroot.pod whether or not > > it ends up in the dist. > > I'm all in favour of it, though I suspect it's too late for me. Yes, Randal please please please write it. I may be too late for me too (but I doubt it - for one thing I use constructors very much like the one above a lot). Lots of my colleagues would really benefit from it. Persuading people that OO in perl is a good thing, isn't exactly easy based on perltoot. Does that count as encouragement? TIA Borup ==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl? Well, if you insist... ==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_ ==== unsubscribe