Re^2: [SOLVED]: Trying to understand method calling in OOP

Please, be correct, and thorough, if you're going to reply. It's so much easier to give a link to a POD page than regurgitate a fragment of it; shift. At least you stopped describing it before errors crept in.

local variable self to provide access to the object

Not a record but three, we'll call them half, errors in a sentence is still a pretty good turn at bat. It's not a local variable. It's not a variable (like $self) but a bareword (self). It might be the class and not an object.

Given the idioms and the MO I have to assume you are sundialsvc4. Giving half right, or in this case, 25ish% right answers to a question no one asked, helps no one and muddies the water. It harms and diminishes the monastery. Why not take a break? Come back in a few months with a new user name, reset the acrimony, as a supplicant and fan of the language instead of an expert aphorism machine stepping on threads and riding coat-tails. If you cannot bring yourself to leave, please try to change your participation.

Comment on Re^2: [SOLVED]: Trying to understand method calling in OOP Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: [SOLVED]: Trying to understand method calling in OOP by eyepopslikeamosquito (Archbishop) on May 13, 2018 at 22:09 UTC
If the post was indeed made by the sundialsvc4, as you suggest, that leads us to two more unsolved mysteries: Was it done deliberately (to avoid the obligatory "seven" down-votes) or accidentally ("the system logged me out")? Why is it when posting anonymously, he uses "these double quotes" yet when posting as himself he uses “these double quotes”? Could it be somehow related to this? More mysteries to keep me up at night. Update: Aha, found a smoking gun that indicates at least some of these recent anonymous posts were deliberate! This node uses “these double quotes” and was done accidentally as indicated by the follow up. Therefore, recent "anonymous" posts used "these double quotes" in a childish attempt to disguise the true author.	[reply]
Re^4: [SOLVED]: Trying to understand method calling in OOP (sundialtology) by LanX (Saint) on May 14, 2018 at 00:40 UTC
Oh lord, please ... ... is there any chance to restrict the feeding to simple and short corrections to protect the unaware? Is it really important which incarnation of which prophet posted bull as long as it was countered? I mean "sundialtology" might be fun at first, but at some point most posts here will become "bla++" exegesis and define the perception of this board. Please! :) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^5: [SOLVED]: Trying to understand method calling in OOP (sundialtology) by 1nickt (Canon) on May 14, 2018 at 10:03 UTC
You are a laughable hypocrite who follows Sundial obsessively and sullies the perception of this board more than anyone. You are the very last person with any credibility or moral authority to scold Eyepops for his own obsession. Pot, you are as black as the kettle you critique. The way forward always starts with a minimal test.	[reply]