Re: Correct idiom for default parameters

Test::new() is pretty un-Perl/OO way to get an object made. Object constructors are generally called as class or objects methods: Test->new([args]). Then you'd have an _init methods to process the args to new or later in other calls where they are allowed. I hope you are not really using the name "Test" for your package. :)

I find >2 arguments to be the tipping point for making named arguments much preferable to positional. What MidLifeXis showed is a good way to go about that.

Comment on Re: Correct idiom for default parameters Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Correct idiom for default parameters by mrider (Beadle) on Apr 28, 2010 at 18:33 UTC
Good points. Understand though, that this bears almost no resemblance to my "real" code. I was attempting to put together the absolute minimum necessary to demonstrate the question and my intentions. And no, my real package isn't called "Test" :) For the most part, the sub routines in question take one parameter and it's optional. I think there's one (maybe two) subroutines that take two where the first is mandatory, and the second is optional. I'd have to look again, as I forget off the top of my head. I do appreciate the input though.	[reply]
Re^2: Correct idiom for default parameters by JavaFan (Canon) on Apr 29, 2010 at 09:45 UTC
Object constructors are generally called as class or objects methods `Test->new([args])` There's only one object constructor in Perl, and it's called `bless`. `Test->new` is nothing more than a class method, that just happens to return an object, often of the same class. More often than not, programmers decide said `new()` creates a brand-spanking new object, which gets initialized as well. These programmers make it hard to do MI.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Correct idiom for default parameters by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Apr 29, 2010 at 14:07 UTC
I know. I was guessing that was understood though perhaps being so explicit would have been helpful here for the OP.	[reply]
Re^3: Correct idiom for default parameters by Anonymous Monk on Apr 30, 2010 at 09:06 UTC
I don't understand ... Imho it's common and accepted terminology to call methods returning member objects "constructors" --lanx	[reply]
Re^4: Correct idiom for default parameters by Anonymous Monk on Apr 30, 2010 at 09:42 UTC
Accepted terminology is irrelevant when you're picking nits	[reply]
Re^5: Correct idiom for default parameters by LanX (Saint) on Apr 30, 2010 at 11:51 UTC
Re^4: Correct idiom for default parameters by JavaFan (Canon) on Apr 30, 2010 at 22:10 UTC
That terminology dates from the same time people thought hashref based objects were great. Just because people repeat others doesn't make them right. Or not use confusing terminology. If `new` is an object constructor, then what does `bless` create? Santa Claus?	[reply] [d/l] [select]