is it ok to name object methods after core functions?

leocharre has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: is it ok to name object methods after core functions? by citromatik (Curate) on Aug 02, 2007 at 15:17 UTC
They are safe because in OO you don't export them, so the methods of a given class belongs to the class they are declared in. citromatik	[reply]
Re: is it ok to name object methods after core functions? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 02, 2007 at 15:19 UTC
It works. `>perl -e"sub print { shift; CORE::print(qq{[@_]\n}); } __PACKAGE__->pr +int('foo'); [foo]` [download] Whether it will lead to confusion or not is up to you.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: is it ok to name object methods after core functions? by Fletch (Bishop) on Aug 02, 2007 at 15:29 UTC
I'd be wary of potential gotchas if you ever used indirect object notation (but then you shouldn't so it's not a big issue). The specific case I'm thinking of would be `open` called as a package method `open MyModule "blah"`; I may just be barking up the wrong tree but I want to say that's going to get `CORE::open`. (Someone who's not as lazy as I am at the moment might actually check what happens . . . :).	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: is it ok to name object methods after core functions? by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Aug 02, 2007 at 18:05 UTC
With the way that Perl OO magic works, when you do `my $o = Some::Class->new; $o->open;` [download] the `$o->open` turns into `Some::Class::open($o)` - by calling it as a method, you're effectively prefixing a namespace to it, so it will never collide with anything outside that namespace and is, therefore, safe. (Unless your class is named 'main', I suppose, but you really, really shouldn't be doing that anyhow.)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: is it ok to name object methods after core functions? by archfool (Monk) on Aug 02, 2007 at 15:50 UTC
Should be fine. Modules like IO::File and IO::Handle have ->open methods. :)	[reply]
Re: is it ok to name object methods after core functions? by Joost (Canon) on Aug 02, 2007 at 20:29 UTC
It'll work fine, and when the semantics match, it's probably a good idea to re-use built-in names, since that will make it easier to read and understand the code. "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]
Re: is it ok to name object methods after core functions? by codeacrobat (Chaplain) on Aug 03, 2007 at 06:50 UTC
Also you should keep in mind that Perl::Critic will complain about builtin function overwrites. Choosing different names spares you these automatic review comments. print+qq(\L@{ref\&@}@{'@'x7^'!#2/"!4'})	[reply]
Re^2: is it ok to name object methods after core functions? by adrianh (Chancellor) on Aug 03, 2007 at 12:36 UTC
Also you should keep in mind that Perl::Critic will complain about builtin function overwrites It's "may complain" not "will complain". P::C is configurable in all things. I love P::C, but changing code just to make a comment disappear isn't what it's about. It highlights things that may be problems. Change them if it makes your code better. If <code>$door->open</open> is more intention revealing than the alternatives leave it alone.	[reply]