Personally, assuming there's nothing more to your example,You missed the point. My commentary is there comes a time when it is required to do one thing to many objects (I don't like L~R's suggestion, really, I'm just talking about map and foreach and grep), and I never make examples where there is 'nothing more to them'. These were examples of how they might work in a larger context, and I really don't like being picked apart because I decided to chose a creative example for your amusement.
Cars and dogs and CD collections are boring, I livened it up a bit. In your example, you do some things I consider to be really odd in the context of a larger app, and it takes away from the meaning of my hypothethical example, perhaps intended to mock it? Do you ever create anonymous data, do things to it, and completely discard it? No. Your example has problems in this regard -- it has hardly any application, even if you were writing a real world application about RandomSpaceTravellers. Your example, as you posted, would raise red-flags in my code review. How are you going to extend that convulted algamation of greps and sorts? What was it you were trying to achieve? Is everything done with side-effects since you don't keep any of the objects around?
If you're implementing an aggregate ... we already have a perfectly good aggregate - it's called an array. If you need a named aggregate, use a hash. How does this additional indirection benefit us?
Which was my point exactly when you originally said the following puzzling comment:
If you need an aggregate, create an aggregate. This, to me, would be a red flag in a code review.
You didn't state why this would be a red-flag, but I assume you have reasons, and you later went on to say that arrays are all well and good (as I maintain). So if you are for whatever reason making an aggregate (why would you? -- but maybe you have to pass a dragonchild code review where you work and must), yes, you are going to come into a case where you need to iterate over a collection, which is in disagreement with:
Personally, I don't see a need for calling the same method on a number of objects
As the many examples show thus far, there are plenty of valid uses ... your particular coding style may dictate otherwise, though yours is not the only style. There are uses, and I originally posted something much more similar to Fletch (which also has uses, even in simple scripts) -- but decided I'd liven it up a bit.
We probably need to agree to disagree here. We have contrasting opinions, and perhaps I will stick to replying to the original thread posts on PerlMonks before I get accused again of making examples with 'nothing to them'. But again, I was never maintaining we needed a function-multiplexor class, I'm only saying (as most monks will back me up) -- grep and map and foreach are good functions, and calling methods on a list isn't so goofy as you seem to imply.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Method Calls on multiple objects
by flyingmoose
in thread Method Calls on multiple objects
by Limbic~Region
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |