You mean, runtime overriding methods for an object after the fact of its construction by manipulating the @ISA chain, while still expecting access to the original object data?
Uh, no, I don't mean that; not anything even close to that. How did you get this from the code I posted?
Submit this search to see some examples of one technique I'm familiar with that would cause the "problem". I suspect there are quite a few other techniques that would cause the same "problem", and I recall a recent thread where someone had the "SUPER:: doesn't work because caller() gives the wrong package" problem so I'm not the only person on the planet who has run into this.
It sounds like Anno has even seen this problem because s/he notes that the work-around of eval "package $pkg; sub $method { $code }" ... is burdensome.
I'm not making any claim to how common any such techniques are on CPAN (I don't search CPAN modules and compile statistics on which techniques are in use). If that is your criteria, then I should not have any qualms about doing things that would break Anno's approach because it isn't being used anywhere at all on CPAN. :)
I care because I consider some of these techniques to be good practices.
- tye
In reply to Re^7: Beyond Inside-Out (no)
by tye
in thread Beyond Inside-Out
by Anno
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |