Edit Question - KnowledgeHub

Title Body

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(...)

Tags (comma-separated) Cancel