Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • ..but if you chain operators you aren't checking for failure :)
    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
    • That is not necessarily true. You can easily eval the whole thing, and die with, e.g. "'Some value' illegal value for property 'bar'". Though I'm not making an argument about whether or not chaining setters is a good practice.
    • Good point!

      But it sort of sounds like an argument for design by contract.

      Oh btw, thanks to the two so far who have left a comments on my first over post! :)

    • If you are chaining methods you have to do error via exceptions.
    • Thanks perfect!

      I haven't made up my mind whether accessors that return the object are such a good idea. Say, for example, you have some basic code:

      package DoStuff;
      .... code to make accessors goes here. We have get_foo and set_foo.

      sub make_foo_value {
      $self = shift;
      $self->set_foo(rand)

      }

      package main;

      my $stuff = DoStuff->new;
      $stuff->make_foo_value;

      What should make_foo_value return? If it returns $self, then you need to go:

      print $stuff->make_foo_value->get_foo;

      On the other hand, if