in reply to Re: Re^2: Private method variations
in thread Private method variations

Maybe I am being niave but, is there something wrong with MyClass::PRIVATE

Nothing beyond the extra 4 (for OUR::) or 5 (for MY::) characters that you have to type every time you call the method :-)

I fear I am too lazy to want to type those extra characters that often.

It also differs a little from the meaning of "private" in some other languages since you can easily get at the method from other classes if you ask for it explicitly - it's just in another package after all.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^4: Private method variations
by stvn (Monsignor) on Mar 01, 2004 at 21:57 UTC
    It also differs a little from the meaning of "private" in some other languages since you can easily get at the method from other classes if you ask for it explicitly - it's just in another package after all.

    Quite true, but do you not intend it to be viewed as "private" ala Java/C++ etc? In which case, the name may actually help to "enforce" your intentions even though the reality is actually different.

    -stvn
[reply]
      Quite true, but do you not intend it to be viewed as "private" ala Java/C++ etc? In which case, the name may actually help to "enforce" your intentions even though the reality is actually different.

      No I don't really want it to be viewed as the same as "private" in Java, C++ or whatever. I want it to be viewed as a solution to the sort of problem that is solved by "private" in those languages :-)

      Since most Perl coders are used to using my and our to solve namespace issues with variables I think those would be more familiar terms.

      The "private" concept in C++ conflates two separate issues:

      • Preventing access to a method
      • Describing the public interface of a class

      I like being able to tease those different functions apart - it can sometimes be useful. For example I've seen C++ coders jump through some evil hoops to test their private methods (e.g. #define private public when compiling in the test framework - ewww! :-)

      That said, the length is the main issue for me with using PRIVATE::. It's just too much typing.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

        Do I understand you correctly? You would have My:: namespace be like private and Our:: namespace be like protected? Or at least close to it, not exactly mapping to the concepts of Java or C++, but instead maybe more the spirit of the concepts (with a little bit of perl mixed in of course). Or am I reading into what you are saying too much? Because I kind of like that, it would be pretty easy for most perl programmers to understand as well.

        quick aside:
        I know Bjarne himself questions the idea of protected, but I have always thought it wasn't that bad, as long as it was in capable hands.

        -stvn
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Meditations