Re: Would someone mind helping me understand this Perl OO code?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Would someone mind helping me understand this Perl OO code? by romandas (Pilgrim) on Dec 22, 2009 at 15:59 UTC
Right. Which is what I meant by the 'one off' error - since $pkg is the first variable in the @_ argument list, it would mistakenly get $main::ip assigned to $Node::pkg, right? So is the code wrong? Like I said, it seems to work though.	[reply]
Re^3: Would someone mind helping me understand this Perl OO code? by almut (Canon) on Dec 22, 2009 at 16:04 UTC
`Node->new(...)` implicitly passes the package name (Node) as the first argument to the constructor... (so you have 4 args in the right slots, and everything is fine)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Would someone mind helping me understand this Perl OO code? by romandas (Pilgrim) on Dec 22, 2009 at 16:11 UTC
I'm sure this behavior is documented somewhere, but didn't see it. Do you know where it can be found? Since new isn't a reserved word, how does perl know to pass the package name implicitly into that method in the first place? I could have just as ~~badly~~easily named the constructor 'bargle'. Is the package name passed implicitly on every method call? Or just the one where the object is blessed?	[reply]
Re^5: Would someone mind helping me understand this Perl OO code? by almut (Canon) on Dec 22, 2009 at 16:16 UTC
Re^5: Would someone mind helping me understand this Perl OO code? by kennethk (Abbot) on Dec 22, 2009 at 16:18 UTC
Re^5: Would someone mind helping me understand this Perl OO code? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 22, 2009 at 16:18 UTC
Re^3: Would someone mind helping me understand this Perl OO code? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 22, 2009 at 16:10 UTC
Oops, ignore my earlier post. `Node->new($ip, $mac_address, $machine);` [download] is basically the same as `Node::new('Node', $ip, $mac_address, $machine);` [download] The main difference is that it checks the parent classes for `new` if sub `Node::new` doesn't exist.	[reply] [d/l] [select]