Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"

Re^6: Language features affect style

by TimToady (Parson)
on Jun 10, 2009 at 19:20 UTC ( #770427=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^5: Language features affect style
in thread Language features affect style

We're kinda confusing levels here. There are really three viewpoints of an object:
  1. The external public view.
  2. The internal private view.
  3. The hidden MOP view
I was speaking from the perspective of #2, not #3. From the #2 perspective, for any normal attribute without an explicit private accessor, $!foo and self!foo are largely interchangeable, give or take a sigil. The MOP may or may not make visible the call that implements $!foo, since $!foo is viewed under #2 as fundamentally a reference to the storage. The MOP is free to not implement method !foo at all if it can determine that it is unneeded, either by analysis or just by being lazy about autoloading one. From the #2 viewpoint, $!foo is just a variable, and method !foo is a (possibly autogenerated) accessor to the variable.

From the #3 perspective, sure, the fundamental accessor for the slot could be identical to method !foo, but then you're kinda hosed if the user wants to actually define the !foo method as a wrapper around $!foo, which would be an infinite regress if you confuse the user's slot accessor with the MOP's slot accessor. So unlike the situation with $.foo, the $!foo notation is not just syntactic sugar for a private accessor, and a private method must be called as self!foo.

So why would the user ever want to define their own private accessor? Primarily to mediate how much you want to dynamically "untrust" any other classes you've trusted by declaration.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Language features affect style
by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Jun 15, 2009 at 14:21 UTC
    Ah, so $!x is only for attributes, and not for private methods, right?

    Q. Does the former use the sigil of the has declaration like a variable, as opposed to the function call semantics of $(self!x) ?

    So, the user can define a method !x directly, and the $!x notation doesn't call it, but bypasses it (talking MOP instead). A trusted user poking around in the privates must call it.

    Am I back on track?

    When I'm sure, I can clarify the synopses where it doesn't properly indicate that this is different.


Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://770427]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (3)
As of 2022-07-04 23:45 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found