Hey, that was my answer! However, these modules exist and are definitely being used. Class::DBI is a prime example. I really don't get much out of writing simple accessors/mutators. If they get more complicated, I would of course like to have the Module move over and facilitate my creating a custom method, which most seem to offer as an option. I think the question still stands as to which, if any, is "better" than the next (or what less-than-obvious advantages exist in one versus the next).
Sean | [reply] |
Really I'm not sure. An accessor/mutator is often very simple, so where is laziness? writing the quick'n'dirty one that "just works" or use a complex module that provides complex options and try to learn how it works --and may bite? | [reply] |
I hear you; I have not found an accessor-generating module that was worth the trouble. But to be fair, I haven't looked too hard since I don't do much module writing (most of my coding is scripts), so my needs in this regard are very modest. For the few modules I write (which are usually relatively simple) I get by with AUTOLOAD, which I still consider lazier than typing out a dozen accessors, even if the "typing" amounts to as little as a brief exercise in cutting and pasting.
| [reply] |
package Whatever::Makes::Sense;
sub create_accessors {
my $class = caller();
foreach my $accessor (@_) {
no strict 'refs';
*{"$class\::$accessor"} = sub {
my $self = shift;
$self->{$accessor} = shift if @_;
return $self->{$accessor};
};
}
}
# And elsewhere...
Whatever::Makes::Sense::create_accessors(qw(foo bar baz));
Drawbacks? You have to write the line of code that lists the accessors. Advantages? You leave AUTOLOAD free to do something else, you don't get things that you didn't intend to AUTOLOAD being AUTOLOADed, your methods are visible to UNIVERSAL::can, missing methods don't get accidentally interpreted as accessors (a good AUTOLOAD can address this, but requires more code)... | [reply]
[d/l] |
Could you please explain a bit the AUTOLOAD magic? I don't get it :)
| [reply] |