There is a FarSide cartoon of a court scene with a lawyer interogating a cow in the witness box: "We want to know why, Brown Cow. We know how now, brown cow.".
It seems odd to me that zigster said "I think AUTOLOAD is bad for munging accessor methods and mutators" and you reply in, so many words...."no you don't understand, this is how it's done". I bet you could write a similar function in Java with clever use of exceptions. you wouldn't want to do it in a Java though, it'd be a hack (If it's a hack in Java then....)
The addition of the exists function kinda highlights zigster's argument (although I fear the repecussions of Scott's opinion being affirmed, it's not something we like to encourage ;). It's like using AUTOLOAD to do overload functions on strict datatypes by using a regex to check the content of parameters. The difference is one is necessary and the other is unnecessary (but admirably lazy ;0)
--Brother Frankus.
In reply to Re: Re: (Zigster) Re: Re: Perl and Objects, how do you resolve the two?
by frankus
in thread Perl and Objects, how do you resolve the two?
by frankus
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |