Basically, that construct is saying "This method can be called as either a class or instance method".
merlyn's writings have been against using this in constructors specifically, not against using it in general methods to allow it to be called against both a class and an object. This is because a chunk of programmers out there expect it to act as a clone, another chunk thinks it should act as a copy, and yet another chunk thinks it should be an error.
I go for something like this:
sub new { my $class = shift; die "Need to be called as a class method" if ref $class; my %params = %{ +shift }; # Define what params we expect my %self = map { $_ => $params{$_} || '' } qw/ foo bar baz /; # Validation bless \%self => $class; }
----
send money to your kernel via the boot loader.. This and more wisdom available from Markov Hardburn.
In reply to Re^2: Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing?
by hardburn
in thread Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing?
by stvn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |