Re^3: Can I add methods to an existing object?

First, I thought of something like this:

*Log::Dispatch::warn = *Log::Dispatch::warning;

But I thought, that it doesn't look nice ;) so I changed it to:

*Log::Dispatch::warn = \&Log::Dispatch::warning;

But both threw warnings that Log::Dispatch::warn is "used only once: possible typo..."; And then, based upon the answers from morgon and mr_mischief I thought of

sub Log::Dispatch::warn {
  my $self = shift;
  $self->warning(@_);
}
[download]

tested with:

#!/usr/bin/perl -l
use strict;
use warnings;

package foo;

sub new {
    bless {}, shift();
}

sub foo {
    my $self = shift;
    print "hello @_";
}

package main;

sub foo::bar {
    my ( $self ) = shift;
    $self->foo(@_);
}

*foo::baz  = \&foo::foo;
*foo::buzz = *foo::foo;

my $o = foo->new();

$o->bar('world');
$o->baz('world');
$o->buzz('world');

__END__
[download]

Comment on Re^3: Can I add methods to an existing object? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Can I add methods to an existing object? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Apr 03, 2009 at 13:18 UTC
But both threw warnings that Log::Dispatch::warn is "used only once: possible typo..."; And both are the Right Way to alias a function. Warnings are hints, not laws.	[reply]
Re^5: Can I add methods to an existing object? by linuxer (Curate) on Apr 03, 2009 at 15:28 UTC
And both are the Right Way to alias a function. Warnings are hints, not laws. I didn't write, that it's a wrong way. And I didn't write about warnings being laws. I like to get rid of warnings without writing `no warnings;`, so I mentioned another way which doesn't show a warning. Is it bad to look for ways to avoid warnings without writing `no warnings;`? `sub foo::bar { my ( $self ) = shift; $self->foo(@_); }` [download] So, is that so much worse than aliasing the function? All in all, I I don't know how to handle your answer. What's your intention? Just information, that the aliasing was done right? Should I consider something else? Thanks in advance for your explanation.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: Can I add methods to an existing object? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Apr 03, 2009 at 17:39 UTC
Is it bad to look for ways to avoid warnings without writing "no warnings?" Yes, when the only point of looking is to avoid warnings. When you find yourself thinking "I know what this code is doing, and I want it to do that, but 'use warnings' bitches at me," you should avoid "use warnings."	[reply]
Re^7: Can I add methods to an existing object? by Jenda (Abbot) on Apr 04, 2009 at 13:46 UTC
Re^7: Can I add methods to an existing object? by linuxer (Curate) on Apr 03, 2009 at 17:47 UTC
Re^6: Can I add methods to an existing object? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Apr 03, 2009 at 17:58 UTC
In addition to what educated_foo was saying: You can scope and limit the warnings too and generally should even if you know why you're turning them off to prevent stupid mistakes or assumptions which might bury bugs. `{ # some scoping block/sub no warnings "once"; # one time whatever... }` [download]	[reply] [d/l]