Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

djberg96 (2603)

  (email not shown publicly)

Journal of djberg96 (2603)

Tuesday February 10, 2004
01:00 PM

Set theory and objects

[ #17335 ]
I received an interesting bug report for Set::Array from Marek Rouchal. The problem it seems, is that while the set methods work fine for plain data types, they don't work for sets of objects.

I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, he's right. I shouldn't return stringified results for objects/references. On the other hand, comparing object id's is almost never what you want anyway when comparing objects because it just isn't that useful.

In the vast majority of cases when you're going to be working with sets of objects, you should subclass and define your own methods to work specifically with those objects. For example, if I have $f1 = Foo->new(1,2) and $f2 = Foo->new(1,2), then for all intents and purposes $f1 and $f2 are identical.

Of course, the real reason I'm arguing is that I'm feeling lazy and I don't want to have to go back and fix my module. ;)

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • If you have

    my $f1 = Foo->new( 1, 2 );
    my $f2 = Foo->new( 1, 2 );

    you cannot say whether or not they are identical, because you do not know what else the constructor might have done. For instance, it might have recorded a timestamp, connected to a different database, or something else that is not necessarily the same from call to call.

    However, if you have

    my $f1 = Foo->new( 1, 2 );
    my $f2 = $f1;

    then the object are the same because they are pointing at the same data. Indeed, their string values sh

    • Oh, I realize that $f1 and $f2 could be different. I was making the assumption (because I was too lazy to write out the code) that there wasn't anything tricky going on behind the scenes.

      Actually, another thing you can do is use and define your own "==" operator. Consider:

      package Foo;
      use strict;
      use overload "==" => \=

      sub new{
          my($class, $arg1, $arg2) = @_;
              _arg1 => $arg1,
              _arg2 => $ar

      • Whoops - didn't mean to hit submit yet. I was going to say that, even defining "==" doesn't help with my module and this is one case where Perl's OO begins to show its clunkiness, because now you have to deal with different types (strings and numbers vs references). I'm not saying it's impossible - I'm just saying it's extremely difficult, and you're better off subclassing.