in reply to RFC: Data::Taxonomy::Tags

Since you asked for any type of feedback, and since I'm not really into this domain, I'll just pick a nit on the first thing I saw ;-) 

use overload
    '""'     => sub { shift->as_string },
    fallback => 1;

[download]
I'm curious why this isn't just the simpler: 
use overload
    '""'     => \&as_string,
    fallback => 1;

[download]
There may be a reason, but, if so, I'm missing it :-) Thanks.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Data::Taxonomy::Tags
by Jenda (Abbot) on Jun 23, 2005 at 00:59 UTC 
    package base;
use overload
    '""'     => sub { shift->as_string },
#    '""'     => \&as_string,
    fallback => 1;

sub as_string { "this is a base class" }

package child;
@ISA = qw(base);
sub as_string { "this is a child class" }

package main;

$obj = bless {}, "child";

print "\$obj=$obj\n";

    [download]
    Try both versions. Do you see the difference? The original version calls the as_string method of the object (which may be either an instance of the base class or a child) while the second calls always the as_string subroutine in the base class.

    Jenda
    XML sucks. Badly. SOAP on the other hand is the most powerfull vacuum pump ever invented.

[reply]
[d/l]
Re^2: RFC: Data::Taxonomy::Tags
by The Mad Hatter (Priest) on Jun 23, 2005 at 01:03 UTC
    It was the first time I'd used overload and it seemed like the natural thing to do for an OO module. ; ) For this case, it doesn't really matter since I'm not doing inheritance, but it does have a difference like Jenda pointed out.
[reply]

In Section Meditations