Re^2: why "Bless" in OO Perl

Actuall the thing being referenced is blessed; the reference is still just a reference. The blessing changes the referent, not the reference itself. A new reference taken to the same referent will exhibit blessed / object-y behavior.</pedant>

use strict;
{package Foo; sub oik { print "oik\n" } }
my $x = bless [], "Foo";
$x->oik;
our @y;
*y = $x;
( \@y )->oik;
[download]

Zaxo's explanation below shows this as well.

Comment on Re^2: why "Bless" in OO Perl Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: why "Bless" in OO Perl by davido (Cardinal) on May 03, 2006 at 15:37 UTC
You are absolutely correct. ...it's a concept I understand but have difficulty expressing clearly, especially in a layman vocabulary. Good job with the linguistic deobfuscation. ;) I might add, the referent needn't be a hash, a simple scalar, nor an array. It could also be a file handle, a regexp, and even a sub, though I've never figured out a useful purpose to blessing a sub. Now I'm sure someone will follow-up with a brilliant use of this technique. grin Dave	[reply]
Re^4: why "Bless" in OO Perl by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on May 03, 2006 at 17:34 UTC
OO: extending a closure object was an example of using a closure as an object base type. The blessed sub is the only possible accessor. It allowed the object to be very opaque, but I didn't see it as enough of a benefit to recommend it. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply]
Re^4: why "Bless" in OO Perl by Fletch (Bishop) on May 03, 2006 at 17:54 UTC
Not brlliant but see Re: How to store CODE ref for a method of accessing the source for a coderef without resorting to `B::` trickery (of course it's not perfect since it doesn't preserve closureness, but then that's a hard problem no matter what . . .). Update: Never mind, that's not blessing the coderef directly it's overloading `&{}`. I thought I'd done something similar with blessed coderefs. Hrmm . . .	[reply]