What perlop doesn't tell you about indirect method calls

[Bo Lindbergh]

hacker->${\sub{Perl->${\sub{another->${\sub{Just->${\sub{print"@_,"}}(@_)}}(@_)}}(@_)}}

.... and the hideous thing even runs under strict.


/Bo Lindbergh

 

[Uri Guttman]

hacker-> ${\sub{Perl->${\sub{another->${\sub{Just->${\sub{print"@_,"}}(@_)}}(@_)}}(@_)}}

those are direct method calls.

BL> ... and the hideous thing even runs under strict.

why shouldn't it? all those token are parsed as bareword class names
which is fine under strict.

uri

 

[Bo Lindbergh]

hacker-> ${\sub{Perl->${\sub{another->${\sub{Just->${\sub{print"@_,"}}(@_)}}(@_)}}(@_)}}

those are direct method calls.[/QUOTE]

Then what adjective should be used to distinguish between

$object -> method (@args)

and

$object -> $methodname (@args)

?


/Bo Lindbergh

 

[Uri Guttman]

hacker-> ${\sub{Perl->${\sub{another->${\sub{Just->${\sub{print"@_,"}}(@_)}}(@_)}}(@_)}}

those are direct method calls.

[/QUOTE]

BL> Then what adjective should be used to distinguish between

BL> $object -> method (@args)

BL> and

BL> $object -> $methodname (@args)

dynamic method calls? delayed binding is another term used as the method
name is not known until the call is made. they are both direct since the
object (or classname) is unambiguous and uses -> to bind the method name
to the object/class. indirect calls are like:

new Classname @args
method $obj 'blah'

those are potentially buggy since a sub new() or method() could have
been declared earlier in the file and those would be called instead of a
method. this is documented in (i think) perlobj. that doc states that
you should never use indirect method calls. your code with a dynamic
method name is fine and i have used it in several places.

uri

 

[Peter Scott]

Then what adjective should be used to distinguish between

$object -> method (@args)

and

$object -> $methodname (@args)

?

Symbolic method call?