in reply to Re^3: Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing?
in thread Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing?

Seems like it'd be less work to write: 
sub new
{
    croak "new() called as a function, not a method\n" unless @_;
    bless {}, shift;
}

[download]

As dragonchild already pointed out, this would not handle Foo::new({}), nor would it handle Foo::new("Data::Dumper"). Both are things are equally as stupid for a user to do, but a new user may not realize the method/function difference, the real question is whether that is my reponsibility or not.

If you really want to be paranoid, though, you should make something similar a precondition of all of your methods.

I assume you mean to check $self, that is true, but even I think that would a little much.

Also, you ought to call isa() directly, not through UNIVERSAL::, in case someone overrides it.

That too would not work for Foo::new({}) or other such insanity.

I am really just trying to find something in between totally over-the-top paranoid, and you-break-it-you-buy-it-an-I-dont-care. And I am still looking as I think the example I gave above it probably too much.

-stvn

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jul 13, 2004 at 03:37 UTC 
    #!/usr/bin/perl -w

use strict;

use Test::More tests => 5;

package Foo;

sub new
{
    my $class = shift;
    return unless eval { $class->isa( __PACKAGE__ ) };
    bless {}, $class;
}

sub is_object { 1 };

package Bar;

@Bar::ISA = 'Foo';

package main;

sub is_object { 0 };

my $foo = Foo->new();
isa_ok( $foo, 'Foo' );

my $bar = Bar->new();
isa_ok( $bar, 'Bar' );

ok( $foo->is_object(), '$foo is an object' );
ok( $bar->is_object(), '$bar is an object' );

my $hash = Foo::new( {} );
is( $hash, undef, 'Foo::new() should not bless a reference passed in' 
+);

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Meditations