Now, many OO purists would say that you shouldn't be doing things like that. Instead, I would suppose they'd argue you should do something more like this:
That would be Java or C++ syntax. (It's kinda scary how similar they look ...) All the methods would have a void return type, meaning that the object stayed encapsulated.Foo foo = new Foo; foo->retrieve( 1 ); foo->method1();
*shrugs* Reason #237908 I choose to program in Perl, I guess ...
Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.
In reply to Re: perl, Class::DBI and OO for dynamic languages
by dragonchild
in thread perl, Class::DBI and OO for dynamic languages
by johnnywang
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |