in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Functional Inside Out Closure Objects
in thread Functional Inside Out Closure Objects

Right. My point is that @Foo::ISA = qw( Bar ); is entirely different, syntactically, from use base 'Bar';. If you regard the former as ugly syntax, then the latter should make you happy. I'm still unclear why it doesn't.
If you were stuck on a desert island with just an interpreter and no modules
If I had internet access, I'd reinstall Perl, of course. But if I really did find myself in such a dire situation as you describe, the brokenness of my Perl code which depends on use base would probably be among the lesser of my worries.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Functional Inside Out Closure Objects
by stvn (Monsignor) on May 21, 2004 at 15:12 UTC
    f you regard the former as ugly syntax, then the latter should make you happy. I'm still unclear why it doesn't.

    It does make me happy (which is kinda sick when you think about it), but my point really is that without external modules like base, the syntax is ugly. It is difficult to take external modules into account when evaluating the beauty of perl's OO since there are many modules out there doing much like what the OP's module does. To be fair to them, my assessment was of the bare module-less syntax.

    -stvn
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom