No. I consider list_active_employees(\@employees); readable enough.
You have to invest some time at the beginning to design your data structures and objects and decide what should be an object and what should not. If you do and use objects whenever you are not sure a plain old datastructure is enough, then you should be fine. And if you find out later that something should have been an object, then the fact whether you can attach a method or two will be the least of your worries. Sure, it might have been made easier to do so, but if something was designed and used for a long time as a plain, transparent data structure, then all the code accesses it as such. And does things you would not want code to do with the insides of an object. So you either refactor properly or end up with something that's treated neither as an object nor as a datastructure.
Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.
In reply to Re^3: Benefits of everything is an object? Or new sigils?
by Jenda
in thread Benefits of everything is an object? Or new sigils?
by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |