Re: Tie-dy up our namespaces

I agree completely. I've always used the naming convention that japhy recommends for my tied objects. I always thought it was the standard - until I found huge numbers of tied modules with (seemingly) random names. It always takes me ages to find IO::Scalar because I assume it's going to be called something like Tie::Filehandle::Scalar or something like that.

--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>

"The first rule of Perl club is you do not talk about Perl club."
-- Chip Salzenberg

Comment on Re: Tie-dy up our namespaces

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Tie-dy up our namespaces by runrig (Abbot) on Jan 03, 2002 at 02:51 UTC
. It always takes me ages to find IO::Scalar because I assume it's going to be called something like Tie::Filehandle::Scalar or something like that. Just remember that IO::Scalar->new returns a blessed glob reference, so it can be used just like an IO::Handle object or one of the other IO::* module objects. In fact, I don't think there's any reason to use the tied interface to IO::Scalar anymore... :-) Though I have heard somewhere that putting a tied interface in the same module as an object interface can cause some problems, can anyone confirm or deny this??	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Tie-dy up our namespaces
by runrig (Abbot) on Jan 03, 2002 at 02:51 UTC

. It always takes me ages to find IO::Scalar because I assume it's going to be called something like Tie::Filehandle::Scalar or something like that.

Just remember that IO::Scalar->new returns a blessed glob reference, so it can be used just like an IO::Handle object or one of the other IO::* module objects. In fact, I don't think there's any reason to use the tied interface to IO::Scalar anymore... :-)

Though I have heard somewhere that putting a tied interface in the same module as an object interface can cause some problems, can anyone confirm or deny this??

[reply]