Actually, I'd say the paucity of arguments is just as important in constructors as in subroutines and for reasons beyond the mere fact that in Perl a constructor just is a class method. For one thing, any object that takes more than a couple of seconds of consideration as to how it may be instantiated will discourage its own use. In either case it indicates generally that insufficient thought was given to breaking up responsibilies among constituent parts. Not always, but often the first thing to consider if you've got vast numbers of arguments to a constructor is the use of inheritance to encapsulate the differences among data and behavior normally conveyed via parameters.
Consider, say, a Logger class with multiple different types of logging available, e.g., types of warning raised if any, location of error logs, email or page contacts, etc. Better to create a CarpLogger subclass that inherits behavior and already knows what to do than to clutter Logger with if/else code deciding actions based upon arguments. A smaller, simpler constructor improves maintainability and usability.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: passing subroutine args as a hash: why not?
by djantzen
in thread passing subroutine args as a hash: why not?
by Willard B. Trophy
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |