I'd be wary of potential gotchas if you ever used indirect object notation (but then you shouldn't so it's not a big issue). The specific case I'm thinking of would be open called as a package method open MyModule "blah"; I may just be barking up the wrong tree but I want to say that's going to get CORE::open. (Someone who's not as lazy as I am at the moment might actually check what happens . . . :).
In reply to Re: is it ok to name object methods after core functions?
by Fletch
in thread is it ok to name object methods after core functions?
by leocharre
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |