I replaced the name of the parent class with <module-name>. […] The variable $class contains the name of the current package ...
I assume that <module-name> is a valid class name. The quoted statements suggest to me that the class <module-name> and the "current package", i.e., class, are not the same. IOW, you are creating an object of class <module-name> and then severing the connection of object data to that class by re-bless-ing the object into a class which has an unknown (to me, at least) relationship to the generating class. This seems to me to be a very good recipe for major Brain Hurt.
Is there any reason not to use the "standard" instantiation process, i.e., use the new constructor of the parent/base/super class, then add data, etc., to the object appropriate to the child/derived/sub class before returning the object reference?
Give a man a fish: <%-(-(-(-<
In reply to Re^3: Invoking bless triggers "Can't resolve method ..." error
by AnomalousMonk
in thread Invoking bless triggers "Can't resolve method ..." error
by turkanis
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |