This is among some of the coolest aspects of perl, IMO.Indeed it's cool, if not for anything else for I had never noticed it either in the docs or in others' code!Assuming $meth is a coderef, $self->$meth(@_) is exactly the same as $meth->($self, @_).
BTW: do you know where all this is documented? I know I can find it myself, but maybe you can direct me straight to the entry point(s) in the docs...
Said this, however cool this syntax is, I am not sure if I want to adopt it with callbacks. I mean, I'm reasoning in terms of psychological L&F (or UI, if you prefer): if I'm basically doing a function call, and I am sure it will be a (subref dereferencing followed by a) function call, then I want it to look like a plain function call, not like I'm accessing a method. Maybe it's just me anyway...
However, if $meth is a string which holds the name of a function, then they aren't the same. The rules get a bit convoluted here:All in all it seems to me that it's just another instance of "symrefs vs 'real' refs", or is there anything substantial to it?
This means that your validation should not check merely that the action parmaeter is a coderef, but also that $self can do it:If I got it right this will "only" be useful if I want to mix callbacks and (methods) inheritance, which I can see could be an interesting option in some cases, but in this case if I simply want to use the former ones, then I wonder if this is the Right Thing(TM) to do...$self->{_action} = ref $_[0] ? $_[0] : $self->can($_[0]); die "Invalid action" unless $self->{_action};
In reply to Re^4: Seeking advice for OO-related strategy
by blazar
in thread Seeking advice for OO-related strategy
by blazar
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |