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
}
[download]

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. :-)