in reply to Re^2: Doubt about fly-weight objects.
in thread Doubt about fly-weight objects.

The conceptual problem you're running into is that Perl's OO model isn't "normal". Every object is a reference, no matter how you slice'n'dice it. This is unlike other languages.

I've never really had a use for flyweights - either I need a real object or I don't. But, that's just me.

  • In general, if you think something isn't in Perl, try it out, because it usually is. :-)
  • "What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of a wall that people have stopped banging their heads against?"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Doubt about fly-weight objects.
by blazar (Canon) on May 17, 2005 at 14:33 UTC
    The conceptual problem you're running into is that Perl's OO model isn't "normal". Every object is a reference, no matter how you slice'n'dice it. This is unlike other languages.
    Indeed! What amazes me most of Perl's object model is that not only it integrates nicely with the rest of the language even being more of an afterthought than a design feature (IIUC - bu then I began with 5.6.1), but above all that notwithstanding its semplicity it's possible with relatively moderate efforts to imitate different OO models from other languages...
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom