"proper" OO

[Eric Wilhelm]

# from Ovid
# on Thursday 04 October 2007 16:11:

>>              (     App::Prove::Plugins->can('switches')
>>                  ? App::Prove::Plugins->switches
>>                  : ()
>>              ),
>
>Side note regarding proper OO.
>
>In the above case, inheritance is warranted with an abstract base
> class for plugins:
>
>  package App::Prove::Plugins::Base;
>
>  sub switches {}
>
>And all plugins inherit from that and you can just properly call the
>switches method without the ternary operator.

That *sounds* nice and proper, but the conditional is on whether or not 
the class has been loaded, but more precisely on whether or not the 
method exists.  So, an abstract base class might be proper, but 
incorrect in this case.  Yes, the conditional should be on 
defined(%App::Prove::Plugins::), but that seems a bit ugly.

--Eric
-- 
Consumers want choice, consumers want openness.
--Rob Glaser
---------------------------------------------------
    http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------