Re^3: Procedural vs OOP modules

Can you give an example where this makes sense?

When one wants to use such functions without instantiating an object first. But I guess one can use class methods (as per your definition) and *make sure* to consume the 1st param which will be the classname.

I think this might sabotage many patterns like sub-classing...

You mean because staticfunc will not be seen in a sub-class unless you do both: use base 'Class'; and use Class; ? I guess yes that's a problem.

I took a quick glimpse into static functions for C++ and Java and they look very much like class methods to me.

Yes, except that they don't mess with the parameters to provide a classname.

Do you suggest that there is no use-case for staticfunc(), but instead convert it into a class method and consume the 1st param, in order to provide accessing it without instantiation first? OK, fine. But I think it is important to provide access to such methods which do not need the state and can be called without instantiating a dummy object first which will be of no use whatsoever. So I think what I posted is useful, but I can edit it to use class methods when this dialogue ends.

bw, bliako

Comment on Re^3: Procedural vs OOP modules Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Procedural vs OOP modules (namespace::clean) by LanX (Saint) on Oct 29, 2021 at 14:03 UTC
> Do you suggest that there is no use-case for staticfunc(), No I ask for use-cases justifying to deviate from `Class->method()` as default. Anything goes in Perl, but I'd like to know why a pattern was applied. I remember the Moo(se) folks using namespace::clean to wipe out any subs which are not part of the class, because otherwise they could be called as instance methods via the ISA chain. A `Class->method()` OTOH is capable to handle that case by checking if the first parameter `$_[0]` was blessed. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Procedural vs OOP modules (namespace::clean)
by LanX (Saint) on Oct 29, 2021 at 14:03 UTC

> Do you suggest that there is no use-case for staticfunc(),

No I ask for use-cases justifying to deviate from Class->method() as default.

Anything goes in Perl, but I'd like to know why a pattern was applied.

I remember the Moo(se) folks using namespace::clean to wipe out any subs which are not part of the class, because otherwise they could be called as instance methods via the ISA chain.

A Class->method() OTOH is capable to handle that case by checking if the first parameter $_[0] was blessed.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]