I've never considered $foo->new() to indicate cloning,
but rather a better looking way to say (ref $foo)->new().
I accept the $class = ref $class || $class as
a Perl-specific idiom and so don't find it confusing.
It is a bad
idiom though. In itself it reads as nonsense: class is
the ref of class or class. Worse is the habit that you
have acquired: to think that $foo->new; is
shorthand for (ref $foo)->new;. This is bad
because they don't mean the same thing unless you know the
internals of new. Also if you don't
know the type of $foo you should explicate
this fact with ref $foo not leave the issue
in doubt.
As this use is idiomatic Perl it is not too confusing once
you realize a codebase uses the idiom.
However it is sloppy, it spreads in a codebase and is
some work to undo. I write something inside my
new (for no reason) that allows you to imply
different meanings (for no reason)
through the different usages that I allowed
(for no reason). Sloppy.
It buys nothing.
It will give pause to the better OO programmers who are
new to Perl.
