Re: fun with hashes!

>>>>> "SHC" == Shawn H Corey <[email protected]> writes:

  SHC> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
  >> * Mr. Shawn H. Corey <[email protected]> [2007-11-24 00:50]:
  >>> my $sub = ( exists $dispatch{ $key } && ref( $dispatch{ $key } ) eq 'CODE' )
  >>> ? $dispatch{ $key }
  >>> : $dispatch{ 'default' };
  >>> 
  >>> Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean computers don't
  >>> hate you :)
  >> So why did you skip the check for whether the default value is
  >> a CODE ref?

  SHC> Because I don't like dispatch tables.  When I see them I want to
  SHC> convert the whole thing to objects and starting thinking about
  SHC> inheritance and polymorphism.  Which will take care of such
  SHC> problems at "compile" time.

and how would an object remove the need for a dispatch table? you can't
always map keys to methods and OO isn't needed in all cases. you can
also do dispatch tables inside a class and again much simpler than OO or
polymorphism. inheritance is right out as it is baggage in most
designs. people think OO eq inheritance and that is so wrong. i prefer
message passing and its flavor of polymorphism any day over inheritance
and its rigid class hierarchies and dependency trees.

  SHC> But this thread is about hashes not objects.

  SHC> (And I still think computers hate me.)

not as much as i hate (but have used) inheritance. i should start a side
thread for this: ever write an OO system where one class ISA and HASA
another class at the same time? i have and for a good reason and it
works so elegantly. :)

thanx,

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  ------  [email protected]  -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs  ----------------------------  http://jobs.perl.org