I agree that OO is not a great wheel for this case. But I
do see two points with that code. The first is that you
probably want your error message put into the handler, and
not the constuctor. (Which is why I posted.) The second
is that you get an indirection layer.
OTOH if the indirection layer is all that is desired, then
a reference to a sub does that without the OO machinery
hanging around.
Incidentally I don't like to put full OO designs into a ton
of code either. However I do like trying to put some sort
of indirection in early. But to do it in a way where I can
behind the scenes figure out how to do it better later.
For instance some of the arguments will likely go into
many messages, so the code I posted could have been
improved to
package Err;
sub new {
return bless {@_}, shift;
}
sub err {
my $self = shift;
my %args = (%$self, @_);
# Do something with %args here
}
Now, while OO probably still isn't a great fit, at least
I have done more with it than provide a level of
indirection in
how the subroutine is named. :-) |