in reply to Re: Re: Here's a quick example why not to use Indirect notation
in thread Perl High School

However, the syntax looks horrible. You have parentheses, indicating a function or method name, on a token indicating a package name. This looks to be a very poor design decision, in my opinion.

Try approaching this from the perspective of creating an instance of a Class, rather than invoking a method in a package. Perl doesn't have constructors, but you can simulate the effect. I do this for expressive purposes.

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Here's a quick example why not to use Indirect notation

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's a quick example why not to use Indirect notation
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Feb 22, 2002 at 19:53 UTC
    In addition, if you mistype the name, so say you do something like: 
    package Foo;

sub new {
    return bless {}, shift;
}

--------

use Foo;

my $bar = new FOO();

    [download]
    You get an error saying that main::FOO() could not be found. That's not a good error.

    Direct notation is put there for a purpose. I think that indirect notation was a bad idea all around, put in to pander to another community that looks down on Perl usage to begin with. *shrugs*

    ------
    We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

    Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.

[reply]
[d/l]
      In addition, if you mistype the name ... you get an error saying that main::FOO() could not be found. That's not a good error.

      That's a rare problem (depending on one's typing skills) that takes, what, about 30 seconds to resolve?

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom