> Note that my intention is not to store children objects inside the father: in my project i store a configuration for various jobs to be executed and foreach one i instantiate a new object and i run it

So i have not to store children objects; i rather have an object that can do an action OR can load a serie of small configuration e instantiate children to do each one one action. Like:

my $obj = new->( arg => 23); 

$obj->run();  # run will use 23

# OR INSTEAD:

my $obj = new->( configuration => file ); # this will load [12, 23, 15
+] into $obj->{ container }

$obj->run_all();

sub run_all{
   my $self = shift;
   foreach my $it ( @{$obj->{ container }} ){
       my $new_obj = ref($self)->new($it);
       $new_obj->run;
   }
}
# update: i had Class instead of new in the above: corrected
[download]

It is that bad? I suppose no..

I'd go with ref($self)->new($it) instead of __PACKAGE__->new($it) because seems more clear even if i have no intention to subclassing.. it is already a mess ;=)

> Or once the object's been constructed, it's guaranteed to be valid?

Yes, it is supposed to be like this; once instantiated the object is guaranteed to be valid.

Anyway, now that the confusion is away from my mind, I know what i intended to write: infact new is a normal subroutine, but what i forgot is that it shift the package name!!

What i intended to write was: new(__PACKAGE__,$it)

L*