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
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Dev vs. live (Score:1)
That gives you protection during testing/development and speed in production (at the risk of REALLY painful bugs if there are flaws in the emulation of Encapsulation.pm).
Alternatively, change the "if" to
Re: (Score:1)
No.
Ovid is throwing away half the point of inside-out objects already: compile-time checking of field names. The other half is being agnostic about the implementation of any superclasses; and your suggestion would mean that one could no longer rely on that, either.
You may as well not use inside-out objects at all. (I am reminded of chromatic’s chocolate cake recipe analogy…)
Re:Dev vs. live (Score:1)
That is, the encapsulation hack could be put to an alternate use. Especially if the overload function dies if the caller package isn't isa('Encapsulation').
I agree that the "inside-outness" is not significant in this case.
Reply to This
Parent