Re^3: Sharing and over-riding package functions

SUPER is a poor choice for a namespace because Perl defines SUPER to indicate a special pseudo-class. Your use of SUPER does coexist as a regular class of the same name. Confusing.

See perldoc perlobj.

Be well,
rir

Comment on Re^3: Sharing and over-riding package functions Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Sharing and over-riding package functions by ruzam (Curate) on Dec 12, 2008 at 22:42 UTC
SUPER is an excellent choice for a namespace (in this situation). It implies the same intention as Perl's built in pseudo-class, which is why I chose it. I get exactly what I expect by calling SUPER::myfunc(). Just as I get exactly what I expect by calling a blessed object with $obj->SUPER::myfunc(). There would only be confusion if I were trying to mix a SUPER name space and blessed objects at the same time. If I had the option (or desire) to use blessed objects in this situation, I wouldn't need to mess with function references and namespaces :)	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Sharing and over-riding package functions
by ruzam (Curate) on Dec 12, 2008 at 22:42 UTC

SUPER is an excellent choice for a namespace (in this situation). It implies the same intention as Perl's built in pseudo-class, which is why I chose it. I get exactly what I expect by calling SUPER::myfunc(). Just as I get exactly what I expect by calling a blessed object with $obj->SUPER::myfunc().

There would only be confusion if I were trying to mix a SUPER name space and blessed objects at the same time. If I had the option (or desire) to use blessed objects in this situation, I wouldn't need to mess with function references and namespaces :)

[reply]