in reply to Re^2: A Class:: module I don't want to write
in thread A Class:: module I don't want to write

Yes. A method maker is verbose enough in Perl5 that you will want to reuse it. As long as you can make a sufficient number of assumptions about the classes it gets used in, you can get some milage out of such reuse, too. These are things I already said.

The point still stands that if the language offered enough abstraction, you would never even feel the urge to use a method maker. Consider that in Perl6, there will be a default OO system for which you will be able to declare attributes without writing code to implement them, and will be able to attach constraints to such attributes declaratively. For those cases where you need something really fancy, there will be functional composition constructs to make the job as simple as possible. Will there be any need for method makers?

Aren’t method makers, then, an attempt to patch a deficiency in Perl5?

Makeshifts last the longest.

  • Comment on Re^3: A Class:: module I don't want to write

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: A Class:: module I don't want to write
by siracusa (Friar) on Nov 24, 2005 at 22:07 UTC
    Will there be any need for method makers?

    Yes, I think so, for the same reasons they're useful in Perl 5. OTOH, I'm not sure what you mean by "functional composition constructs," so maybe the answer is really "no" :) Can you explain?