Re^3: Reflecting on Object

You break your own argument here. From the caller's point of view, a call appears atomic, but thanks to AUTOLOAD, the call itself is able to modify the world, even before the eventually-installed method is entered. You can stop time just before the call, and still not prove what methods are available. QED.

And words are important: I said 'akin,' not 'equivalent.' There are differences. However, they're both in a group of unprovable-because-the-domain-can-change problems.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

Comment on Re^3: Reflecting on Object

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Reflecting on Object by Anonymous Monk on Jul 21, 2005 at 14:53 UTC
What the other AM means is that it is possible to determine which subroutines are available to classes (including the AUTOLOAD routine) without the class getting a chance to modify itself (or some code to modify the class). There's no need to call a method to find out whether it is defined. However, you cannot find out what is dealt with by AUTOLOAD (well, technically, if there's an AUTOLOAD, anything is dealt with, even if dealing with means not doing anything - if there's an AUTOLOAD, you won't get a perl generated "Can't locate object method" error for that class.	[reply]
Re^4: Reflecting on Object by jdporter (Paladin) on Jul 21, 2005 at 14:58 UTC
"the call itself"? What call? I see no call here. We're not calling anything, we're just walking through the symbol table.	[reply]