Say I have a package called My::Pkg, and that package has a ->new(...) class method to instantiate new objects:

package My::Pkg;

sub new {bless {@_[1..$#_]} => $_[0]}

Is there any harm in defining the following subroutine:

sub My::Pkg {@_ ? My::Pkg::new('My::Pkg', @_) : 'My::Pkg'}

So that someone could write:

my $obj = My::Pkg one => 1, two => 2;

Rather than:

my $obj = My::Pkg->new(one => 1, two => 2); # which still works, but is longer

I like the terseness of the package-named-constructor-subroutine method, but I am interested to know if there are any hidden gotchas to this technique that I have not thought of.

Update:

Inheritance works correctly, as shown by the example here:

{package a; sub new {say "a::new [@_] ", $_[0]->init}}
{package b;    our @ISA = 'a'; sub init {"(b::init [@_])"}}
{package a::b; our @ISA = 'b';}

sub a::b {print "absub [@_], "; 'a::b'}

# a::b() called with no args, returns 'a::b', which then becomes 'a::b'->new(...)
a::b->new;            # absub [], a::new [a::b] (b::init [a::b])
a::b->new(1, 2, 3);   # absub [], a::new [a::b 1 2 3] (b::init [a::b])    

# no call to `a::b()` but otherwise the same:
'a::b'->new;          # a::new [a::b] (b::init [a::b])
'a::b'->new(1, 2, 3); # a::new [a::b 1 2 3] (b::init [a::b])

new a::b::;           # a::new [a::b] (b::init [a::b])
new a::b:: 1, 2, 3;   # a::new [a::b 1 2 3] (b::init [a::b])

Interestingly the only thing so far that is different is that the following 2 lines become syntax errors:

new a::b;
new a::b 1, 2, 3;

Which is a syntax error for the same reason some_undefined_sub some_defined_sub; is one.

If the new subroutine is defined, it is parsed as new( a::b(...)

perl syntax constructor
Edit
Report