It depends... Assuming there are no duplicate names, I would create a hash once populated with the names as keys and the object refs as values.

my %objects_by_name;

for (@obj_fw) { $objects_by_name{$_->name} = $_ }
[download]

or even better right when the objects are being created/given names.

From then on you get the objects by name from $objects_by_name{$name}

Cheers, Sören

I know this would upset a few OO-purists, but it works.

In the "new" method, before "return $self", do "push @collection, $self".

Now, you can create an object method that searches @collection.

In your case, you would probably be better off with %collection.

The alternative is to create a separate "collection" package that holds all the individuals.

this would upset a few OO-purists

Well, not only purists. How does it work when you subclass the class?
لսႽ† ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ

Forget subclassing ... how does it work if you want to have two or more collections?

Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.

There are several, admittedly hack-y options for subclassing:

1. Call the parent-class "new" method, and let it collect
(Assumes you dont need subclass collections)
2. Do a similar @collection in the subclass
3. Write the parent class such that you have a reference inside the object : something like:
$self{COLLECTION} = \@collection;
then manipulate that property in the subclass.

Disclaimer: I have never had the need to subclass these, so this is untested.

             My goal ... to kill off the slow brain cells that are holding me back from synergizing my knowledge of vertically integrated mobile platforms in local cloud-based content management system datafication.

Subclassing is something programming books teach as immensely important, but is actually pretty damn rare in the real world...

If your program most-commonly looks for objects by “name,” then putting the objects into a hash rather than array might be most effective.   The each() iterator can be used to walk through it, or you can use keys to obtain an array of keys.   This will only (easily ...) work if the names are unique.

You can also have it both ways.   The “array of objects” actually contains references to those objects (as does the hash above), and it’s perfectly find to have more-than-one reference to the same thing.   This is directly analogous to an SQL database with its multiple “indexes.”   It works great, with only one small catch:   you must know that this is what you’ve done.   If you want to dispose of an object, you do so by eliminating all references to it ... from the array, and also from the hash.