Re^2: Inheritance - calling parent constructor

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Inheritance - calling parent constructor by bob_dobalina (Sexton) on Dec 29, 2009 at 19:13 UTC
Wrong syntax. That will attempt to call new in package SUPER. - That's what I thought - i got the correct syntax from the link you had - thanks And you forgot to remove the bless that's now useless. - Could you elaborate here? I thought I have read that re-blessing is bad and was searching for best practices on re-blessing without much luck.	[reply]
Re^4: Inheritance - calling parent constructor by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 29, 2009 at 22:55 UTC
I thought I have read that re-blessing is bad More accurately, it shouldn't be needed. If it's needed, it's a sign something else is wrong.	[reply]
Re^5: Inheritance - calling parent constructor by JavaFan (Canon) on Dec 29, 2009 at 23:33 UTC
But you only know whether something is wrong if you actually peek in the code of the parent class¹. But that means breaking encapsulation², which you aren't supposed to do when doing OO. I would leave in the bless. At worst, it's redundant. At best, it fixes something the parent does wrong. ¹ And keep peeking. If it's ok now, it may no longer be ok tomorrow after the sysadmin upgraded some packages. ² Of course, the code of the OP already assumes the parents constructor returns a hashref. So the OP has already sacrificed one the pearls of OO already.	[reply]
Re^6: Inheritance - calling parent constructor by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 30, 2009 at 00:51 UTC
Re^7: Inheritance - calling parent constructor by JavaFan (Canon) on Dec 30, 2009 at 03:00 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here