djk at tobit.co.uk
Wed Jan 17 12:22:08 GMT 2007
> On Tuesday 16 January 2007 08:10, Dirk Koopman wrote:
>> When messing with AUTOLOAD, the only thing that can() and its friends can
>> tell you, reliably, about is any static method - such as
> I don't know why people continue saying this. It's completely wrong.
> What kind of systems are you writing that there is absolutely no sort of
> reliable reasoning about what will invoke AUTOLOAD() and how does it possibly
> pass the Perl core test suite?
> Alternately, what sort of places do you work that consider it acceptable to
> break Perl objects so spectacularly?
Ok, I am willing to learn.
Could you please specify exactly what is wrong with the above statement?
Note the use of the word "reliably", which I choose to interpret as "at
*all* moments during the running of a program". The fact that (what I
choose to call) non-static methods can be created during the running of
a program, either through the use of AUTOLOAD or by other means, does
not equate to "reliable" in the context of the above statement + example.
Note also the use of a degree of irony in the choice of example.
More information about the london.pm