*nix Documentation Project
·  Home
 +   man pages
·  Linux HOWTOs
·  FreeBSD Tips
·  *niX Forums

  man pages->OpenBSD man pages -> perltooc (1)              



NAME    [Toc]    [Back]

       perltooc - Tom's OO Tutorial for Class Data in Perl

DESCRIPTION    [Toc]    [Back]

       When designing an object class, you are sometimes faced
       with the situation of wanting common state shared by all
       objects of that class.  Such class attributes act somewhat
       like global variables for the entire class, but unlike
       program-wide globals, class attributes have meaning only
       to the class itself.

       Here are a few examples where class attributes might come
       in handy:

       o   to keep a count of the objects you've created, or how
           many are still extant.

       o   to extract the name or file descriptor for a logfile
           used by a debugging method.

       o   to access collective data, like the total amount of
           cash dispensed by all ATMs in a network in a given

       o   to access the last object created by a class, or the
           most accessed object, or to retrieve a list of all

       Unlike a true global, class attributes should not be
       accessed directly.  Instead, their state should be
       inspected, and perhaps altered, only through the mediated
       access of class methods.  These class attributes accessor
       methods are similar in spirit and function to accessors
       used to manipulate the state of instance attributes on an
       object.  They provide a clear firewall between interface
       and implementation.

       You should allow access to class attributes through either
       the class name or any object of that class.  If we assume
       that $an_object is of type Some_Class, and the
       &Some_Class::population_count method accesses class
       attributes, then these two invocations should both be possible,
 and almost certainly equivalent.


       The question is, where do you store the state which that
       method accesses?  Unlike more restrictive languages like
       C++, where these are called static data members, Perl provides
 no syntactic mechanism to declare class attributes,
       any more than it provides a syntactic mechanism to declare
       instance attributes.  Perl provides the developer with a
       broad set of powerful but flexible features that can be
       uniquely crafted to the particular demands of the situation.

       A class in Perl is typically implemented in a module.  A
       module consists of two complementary feature sets: a package
 for interfacing with the outside world, and a lexical
       file scope for privacy.  Either of these two mechanisms
       can be used to implement class attributes.  That means you
       get to decide whether to put your class attributes in
       package variables or to put them in lexical variables.

       And those aren't the only decisions to make.  If you
       choose to use package variables, you can make your class
       attribute accessor methods either ignorant of inheritance
       or sensitive to it.  If you choose lexical variables, you
       can elect to permit access to them from anywhere in the
       entire file scope, or you can limit direct data access
       exclusively  to the methods implementing those attributes.

Class Data in a Can    [Toc]    [Back]

       One of the easiest ways to solve a hard problem is to let
       someone else do it for you!  In this case,
       Class::Data::Inheritable (available on a CPAN near you)
       offers a canned solution to the class data problem using
       closures.  So before you wade into this document, consider
       having a look at that module.

Class Data as Package Variables    [Toc]    [Back]

       Because a class in Perl is really just a package, using
       package variables to hold class attributes is the most
       natural choice.  This makes it simple for each class to
       have its own class attributes.  Let's say you have a class
       called Some_Class that needs a couple of different
       attributes that you'd like to be global to the entire
       class.  The simplest thing to do is to use package variables
 like $Some_Class::CData1 and $Some_Class::CData2 to
       hold these attributes.  But we certainly don't want to
       encourage outsiders to touch those data directly, so we
       provide methods to mediate access.

       In the accessor methods below, we'll for now just ignore
       the first argument--that part to the left of the arrow on
       method invocation, which is either a class name or an
       object reference.
           package Some_Class;
           sub CData1 {
               shift;  # XXX: ignore calling class/object
               $Some_Class::CData1 = shift if @_;
               return $Some_Class::CData1;
           sub CData2 {
               shift;  # XXX: ignore calling class/object
               $Some_Class::CData2 = shift if @_;
               return $Some_Class::CData2;

       This technique is highly legible and should be completely
       straightforward to even the novice Perl programmer.  By
       fully qualifying the package variables, they stand out
       clearly when reading the code.  Unfortunately, if you misspell
 one of these, you've introduced an error that's hard
       to catch.  It's also somewhat disconcerting to see the
       class name itself hard-coded in so many places.

       Both these problems can be easily fixed.  Just add the
       "use strict" pragma, then pre-declare your package variables.
  (The "our" operator will be new in 5.6, and will
       work for package globals just like "my" works for scoped

           package Some_Class;
           use strict;
           our($CData1, $CData2);      # our() is new to perl5.6
           sub CData1 {
               shift;  # XXX: ignore calling class/object
               $CData1 = shift if @_;
               return $CData1;
           sub CData2 {
               shift;  # XXX: ignore calling class/object
               $CData2 = shift if @_;
               return $CData2;

       As with any other global variable, some programmers prefer
       to start their package variables with capital letters.
       This helps clarity somewhat, but by no longer fully qualifying
 the package variables, their significance can be
       lost when reading the code.  You can fix this easily
       enough by choosing better names than were used here.

       Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket    [Toc]    [Back]

       Just as the mindless enumeration of accessor methods for
       instance attributes grows tedious after the first few (see
       perltoot), so too does the repetition begin to grate when
       listing out accessor methods for class data.  Repetition
       runs counter to the primary virtue of a programmer:
       Laziness, here manifesting as that innate urge every programmer
 feels to factor out duplicate code whenever possible.

       Here's what to do.  First, make just one hash to hold all
       class attributes.

           package Some_Class;
           use strict;
           our %ClassData = (          # our() is new to perl5.6
               CData1 => "",
               CData2 => "",

       Using closures (see perlref) and direct access to the
       package symbol table (see perlmod), now clone an accessor
       method for each key in the %ClassData hash.  Each of these
       methods is used to fetch or store values to the specific,
       named class attribute.

           for my $datum (keys %ClassData) {
               no  strict "refs";       # to register new methods
in package
               *$datum = sub {
                   shift;      # XXX: ignore calling class/object
                   $ClassData{$datum} = shift if @_;
                   return $ClassData{$datum};

       It's true that you could work out a solution employing an
       &AUTOLOAD method, but this approach is unlikely to prove
       satisfactory.  Your function would have to distinguish
       between class attributes and object attributes; it could
       interfere with inheritance; and it would have to careful
       about DESTROY.  Such complexity is uncalled for in most
       cases, and certainly in this one.

       You may wonder why we're rescinding strict refs for the
       loop.  We're manipulating the package's symbol table to
       introduce new function names using symbolic references
       (indirect naming), which the strict pragma would otherwise
       forbid.  Normally, symbolic references are a dodgy notion
       at best.  This isn't just because they can be used accidentally
 when you aren't meaning to.  It's also because
       for most uses to which beginning Perl programmers attempt
       to put symbolic references, we have much better
       approaches, like nested hashes or hashes of arrays.  But
       there's nothing wrong with using symbolic references to
       manipulate something that is meaningful only from the perspective
 of the package symbol table, like method names or
       package variables.  In other words, when you want to refer
       to the symbol table, use symbol references.

       Clustering all the class attributes in one place has
       several advantages.  They're easy to spot, initialize, and
       change.  The aggregation also makes them convenient to
       access externally, such as from a debugger or a persistence
 package.  The only possible problem is that we don't
       automatically know the name of each class's class object,
       should it have one.  This issue is addressed below in "The
       Eponymous Meta-Object".

       Inheritance Concerns    [Toc]    [Back]

       Suppose you have an instance of a derived class, and you
       access class data using an inherited method call.  Should
       that end up referring to the base class's attributes, or
       to those in the derived class?  How would it work in the
       earlier examples?  The derived class inherits all the base
       class's methods, including those that access class
       attributes.  But what package are the class attributes
       stored in?

       The answer is that, as written, class attributes are
       stored in the package into which those methods were compiled.
  When you invoke the &CData1 method on the name of
       the derived class or on one of that class's objects, the
       version shown above is still run, so you'll access
       $Some_Class::CData1--or in the method cloning version,

       Think of these class methods as executing in the context
       of their base class, not in that of their derived class.
       Sometimes this is exactly what you want.  If Feline subclasses
 Carnivore, then the population of Carnivores in
       the world should go up when a new Feline is born.  But
       what if you wanted to figure out how many Felines you have
       apart from Carnivores?  The current approach doesn't support

       You'll have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it
       makes any sense for class attributes to be package-relative.
  If you want it to be so, then stop ignoring the
       first argument to the function.  Either it will be a package
 name if the method was invoked directly on a class
       name, or else it will be an object reference if the method
       was invoked on an object reference.  In the latter case,
       the ref() function provides the class of that object.

           package Some_Class;
           sub CData1 {
               my $obclass = shift;
               my $class   = ref($obclass) || $obclass;
               my $varname = $class . "::CData1";
               no strict "refs";       # to access  package  data
               $$varname = shift if @_;
               return $$varname;
       And then do likewise for all other class attributes (such
       as CData2, etc.) that you wish to access as package variables
 in the invoking package instead of the compiling
       package as we had previously.

       Once again we temporarily disable the strict references
       ban, because otherwise we couldn't use the fully-qualified
       symbolic name for the package global.  This is perfectly
       reasonable: since all package variables by definition live
       in a package, there's nothing wrong with accessing them
       via that package's symbol table.  That's what it's there
       for (well, somewhat).

       What about just using a single hash for everything and
       then cloning methods?  What would that look like?  The
       only difference would be the closure used to produce new
       method entries for the class's symbol table.

           no strict "refs";
           *$datum = sub {
               my $obclass = shift;
               my $class   = ref($obclass) || $obclass;
               my $varname = $class . "::ClassData";
               $varname->{$datum} = shift if @_;
               return $varname->{$datum};

       The Eponymous Meta-Object    [Toc]    [Back]

       It could be argued that the %ClassData hash in the previous
 example is neither the most imaginative nor the most
       intuitive of names.  Is there something else that might
       make more sense, be more useful, or both?

       As it happens, yes, there is.  For the "class
       meta-object", we'll use a package variable of the same
       name as the package itself.  Within the scope of a package
       Some_Class declaration, we'll use the eponymously named
       hash %Some_Class as that class's meta-object.  (Using an
       eponymously named hash is somewhat reminiscent of classes
       that name their constructors eponymously in the Python or
       C++ fashion.  That is, class Some_Class would use
       &Some_Class::Some_Class as a constructor, probably even
       exporting that name as well.  The StrNum class in Recipe
       13.14 in The Perl Cookbook does this, if you're looking
       for an example.)

       This predictable approach has many benefits, including
       having a well-known identifier to aid in debugging, transparent
 persistence, or checkpointing.  It's also the obvious
 name for monadic classes and translucent attributes,
       discussed later.

       Here's an example of such a class.  Notice how the name of
       the hash storing the meta-object is the same as the name
       of the package used to implement the class.

           package Some_Class;
           use strict;

           #  create class meta-object using that most perfect of
           our %Some_Class = (         # our() is new to perl5.6
               CData1 => "",
               CData2 => "",

           # this accessor is calling-package-relative
           sub CData1 {
               my $obclass = shift;
               my $class   = ref($obclass) || $obclass;
               no strict  "refs";        #  to  access  eponymous
               $class->{CData1} = shift if @_;
               return $class->{CData1};

           # but this accessor is not
           sub CData2 {
               shift;                    #  XXX:  ignore  calling
               no strict  "refs";        #  to  access  eponymous
               __PACKAGE__ -> {CData2} = shift if @_;
               return __PACKAGE__ -> {CData2};

       In the second accessor method, the __PACKAGE__ notation
       was used for two reasons.  First, to avoid hardcoding the
       literal package name in the code in case we later want to
       change that name.  Second, to clarify to the reader that
       what matters here is the package currently being compiled
       into, not the package of the invoking object or class.  If
       the long sequence of non-alphabetic characters bothers
       you, you can always put the __PACKAGE__ in a variable

           sub CData2 {
               shift;                   #  XXX:  ignore   calling
               no  strict  "refs";        #  to  access eponymous
               my $class = __PACKAGE__;
               $class->{CData2} = shift if @_;
               return $class->{CData2};

       Even though we're using symbolic references for good not
       evil, some folks tend to become unnerved when they see so
       many places with strict ref checking disabled.  Given a
       symbolic reference, you can always produce a real reference
 (the reverse is not true, though).  So we'll create a
       subroutine that does this conversion for us.  If invoked
       as a function of no arguments, it returns a reference to
       the compiling class's eponymous hash.  Invoked as a class
       method, it returns a reference to the eponymous hash of
       its caller.  And when invoked as an object method, this
       function returns a reference to the eponymous hash for
       whatever class the object belongs to.

           package Some_Class;
           use strict;

           our %Some_Class = (         # our() is new to perl5.6
               CData1 => "",
               CData2 => "",

           #  tri-natured:  function,  class  method,  or  object
           sub _classobj {
               my $obclass = shift || __PACKAGE__;
               my $class   = ref($obclass) || $obclass;
               no strict "refs";   # to convert sym ref  to  real
               return $class;

           for my $datum (keys %{ _classobj() } ) {
               # turn off strict refs so that we can
               # register a method in the symbol table
               no strict "refs";
               *$datum = sub {
                   use strict "refs";
                   my $self = shift->_classobj();
                   $self->{$datum} = shift if @_;
                   return $self->{$datum};

       Indirect References to Class Data    [Toc]    [Back]

       A reasonably common strategy for handling class attributes
       is to store a reference to each package variable on the
       object itself.  This is a strategy you've probably seen
       before, such as in perltoot and perlbot, but there may be
       variations in the example below that you haven't thought
       of before.

           package Some_Class;
           our($CData1, $CData2);              # our() is new  to
           sub new {
               my $obclass = shift;
               return bless my $self = {
                   ObData1 => "",
                   ObData2 => "",
                   CData1  => Data1,
                   CData2  => Data2,
               } => (ref $obclass || $obclass);

           sub ObData1 {
               my $self = shift;
               $self->{ObData1} = shift if @_;
               return $self->{ObData1};

           sub ObData2 {
               my $self = shift;
               $self->{ObData2} = shift if @_;
               return $self->{ObData2};

           sub CData1 {
               my $self = shift;
               my $dataref = ref $self
                               ? $self->{CData1}
                               : Data1;
               $$dataref = shift if @_;
               return $$dataref;

           sub CData2 {
               my $self = shift;
               my $dataref = ref $self
                               ? $self->{CData2}
                               : Data2;
               $$dataref = shift if @_;
               return $$dataref;

       As written above, a derived class will inherit these methods,
 which will consequently access package variables in
       the base class's package.  This is not necessarily
       expected behavior in all circumstances.  Here's an example
       that uses a variable meta-object, taking care to access
       the proper package's data.

               package Some_Class;
               use strict;

               our %Some_Class = (     # our() is new to perl5.6
                   CData1 => "",
                   CData2 => "",
               sub _classobj {
                   my $self  = shift;
                   my $class = ref($self) || $self;
                   no strict "refs";
                   # get (hard) ref to eponymous meta-object
                   return $class;

               sub new {
                   my $obclass  = shift;
                   my $classobj = $obclass->_classobj();
                   bless my $self = {
                       ObData1 => "",
                       ObData2 => "",
                       CData1  => lassobj->{CData1},
                       CData2  => lassobj->{CData2},
                   } => (ref $obclass || $obclass);
                   return $self;

               sub ObData1 {
                   my $self = shift;
                   $self->{ObData1} = shift if @_;
                   return $self->{ObData1};

               sub ObData2 {
                   my $self = shift;
                   $self->{ObData2} = shift if @_;
                   return $self->{ObData2};

               sub CData1 {
                   my $self = shift;
                   $self = $self->_classobj() unless ref $self;
                   my $dataref = $self->{CData1};
                   $$dataref = shift if @_;
                   return $$dataref;

               sub CData2 {
                   my $self = shift;
                   $self = $self->_classobj() unless ref $self;
                   my $dataref = $self->{CData2};
                   $$dataref = shift if @_;
                   return $$dataref;

       Not only are we now strict refs clean, using an eponymous
       meta-object seems to make the code cleaner.  Unlike the
       previous version, this one does something interesting in
       the face of inheritance: it accesses the class meta-object
       in the invoking class instead of the one into which the
       method was initially compiled.
       You can easily access data in the class meta-object, making
 it easy to dump the complete class state using an
       external mechanism such as when debugging or implementing
       a persistent class.  This works because the class metaobject
 is a package variable, has a well-known name, and
       clusters all its data together.  (Transparent persistence
       is not always feasible, but it's certainly an appealing

       There's still no check that object accessor methods have
       not been invoked on a class name.  If strict ref checking
       is enabled, you'd blow up.  If not, then you get the
       eponymous meta-object.  What you do with--or about--this
       is up to you.  The next two sections demonstrate innovative
 uses for this powerful feature.

       Monadic Classes    [Toc]    [Back]

       Some of the standard modules shipped with Perl provide
       class interfaces without any attribute methods whatsoever.
       The most commonly used module not numbered amongst the
       pragmata, the Exporter module, is a class with neither
       constructors nor attributes.  Its job is simply to provide
       a standard interface for modules wishing to export part of
       their namespace into that of their caller.  Modules use
       the Exporter's &import method by setting their inheritance
       list in their package's @ISA array to mention  "Exporter".
       But class Exporter provides no constructor, so you can't
       have several instances of the class.  In fact, you can't
       have any--it just doesn't make any sense.  All you get is
       its methods.  Its interface contains no statefulness, so
       state data is wholly superfluous.

       Another sort of class that pops up from time to time is
       one that supports a unique instance.  Such classes are
       called monadic classes, or less formally, singletons or
       highlander classes.

       If a class is monadic, where do you store its state, that
       is, its attributes?  How do you make sure that there's
       never more than one instance?  While you could merely use
       a slew of package variables, it's a lot cleaner to use the
       eponymously named hash.  Here's a complete example of a
       monadic class:

           package Cosmos;
           %Cosmos = ();

           # accessor method for "name" attribute
           sub name {
               my $self = shift;
               $self->{name} = shift if @_;
               return $self->{name};
           # read-only accessor method for "birthday" attribute
           sub birthday {
               my $self = shift;
               die "can't reset birthday" if @_;  # XXX:  croak()
is better
               return $self->{birthday};

           # accessor method for "stars" attribute
           sub stars {
               my $self = shift;
               $self->{stars} = shift if @_;
               return $self->{stars};

           # oh my - one of our stars just went out!
           sub supernova {
               my $self = shift;
               my $count = $self->stars();
               $self->stars($count - 1) if $count > 0;

           # constructor/initializer method - fix by reboot
           sub bigbang {
               my $self = shift;
               %$self = (
                   name           =>   "the  world  according  to
                   birthday     => time(),
                   stars        => 0,
               return $self;       # yes, it's probably a  class.

           #  After  the class is compiled, but before any use or
           # returns, we start off the universe with a bang.
           __PACKAGE__ -> bigbang();

       Hold on, that doesn't look like anything special.  Those
       attribute accessors look no different than they would if
       this were a regular class instead of a monadic one.  The
       crux of the matter is there's nothing that says that $self
       must hold a reference to a blessed object.  It merely has
       to be something you can invoke methods on.  Here the package
 name itself, Cosmos, works as an object.  Look at the
       &supernova method.  Is that a class method or an object
       method?  The answer is that static analysis cannot reveal
       the answer.  Perl doesn't care, and neither should you.
       In the three attribute methods, %$self is really accessing
       the %Cosmos package variable.

       If like Stephen Hawking, you posit the existence of multiple,
 sequential, and unrelated universes, then you can
       invoke the &bigbang method yourself at any time to start
       everything all over again.  You might think of &bigbang as
       more of an initializer than a constructor, since the
       function doesn't allocate new memory; it only initializes
       what's already there.  But like any other constructor, it
       does return a scalar value to use for later method invocations.

       Imagine that some day in the future, you decide that one
       universe just isn't enough.  You could write a new class
       from scratch, but you already have an existing class that
       does what you want--except that it's monadic, and you want
       more than just one cosmos.

       That's what code reuse via subclassing is all about.  Look
       how short the new code is:

           package Multiverse;
           use Cosmos;
           @ISA = qw(Cosmos);

           sub new {
               my $protoverse = shift;
               my $class      = ref($protoverse) || $protoverse;
               my $self       = {};
               return bless($self, $class)->bigbang();

       Because we were careful to be good little creators when we
       designed our Cosmos class, we can now reuse it without
       touching a single line of code when it comes time to write
       our Multiverse class.  The same code that worked when
       invoked as a class method continues to work perfectly well
       when invoked against separate instances of a derived

       The astonishing thing about the Cosmos class above is that
       the value returned by the &bigbang "constructor" is not a
       reference to a blessed object at all.  It's just the
       class's own name.  A class name is, for virtually all
       intents and purposes, a perfectly acceptable object.  It
       has state, behavior, and identity, the three crucial components
 of an object system.  It even manifests inheritance,
 polymorphism, and encapsulation.  And what more can
       you ask of an object?

       To understand object orientation in Perl, it's important
       to recognize the unification of what other programming
       languages might think of as class methods and object methods
 into just plain methods.  "Class methods" and "object
       methods" are distinct only in the compartmentalizing mind
       of the Perl programmer, not in the Perl language itself.

       Along those same lines, a constructor is nothing special
       either, which is one reason why Perl has no pre-ordained
       name for them.  "Constructor" is just an informal term
       loosely used to describe a method that returns a scalar
       value that you can make further method calls against.  So
       long as it's either a class name or an object reference,
       that's good enough.  It doesn't even have to be a reference
 to a brand new object.

       You can have as many--or as few--constructors as you want,
       and you can name them whatever you care to.  Blindly and
       obediently using new() for each and every constructor you
       ever write is to speak Perl with such a severe C++ accent
       that you do a disservice to both languages.  There's no
       reason to insist that each class have but one constructor,
       or that a constructor be named new(), or that a constructor
 be used solely as a class method and not an object

       The next section shows how useful it can be to further
       distance ourselves from any formal distinction between
       class method calls and object method calls, both in constructors
 and in accessor methods.

       Translucent Attributes    [Toc]    [Back]

       A package's eponymous hash can be used for more than just
       containing per-class, global state data.  It can also
       serve as a sort of template containing default settings
       for object attributes.  These default settings can then be
       used in constructors for initialization of a particular
       object.  The class's eponymous hash can also be used to
       implement translucent attributes.  A translucent attribute
       is one that has a class-wide default.  Each object can set
       its own value for the attribute, in which case
       "$object->attribute()" returns that value.  But if no
       value has been set, then "$object->attribute()" returns
       the class-wide default.

       We'll apply something of a copy-on-write approach to these
       translucent attributes.  If you're just fetching values
       from them, you get translucency.  But if you store a new
       value to them, that new value is set on the current
       object.  On the other hand, if you use the class as an
       object and store the attribute value directly on the
       class, then the meta-object's value changes, and later
       fetch operations on objects with uninitialized values for
       those attributes will retrieve the meta-object's new values.
  Objects with their own initialized values, however,
       won't see any change.

       Let's look at some concrete examples of using these properties
 before we show how to implement them.  Suppose that
       a class named Some_Class had a translucent data attribute
       called "color".  First you set the color in the
       meta-object, then you create three objects using a constructor
 that happens to be named &spawn.
           use Vermin;

           $ob1  =  Vermin->spawn();      #  so that's where Jedi
come from
           $ob2 = Vermin->spawn();
           $ob3 = Vermin->spawn();

           print $obj3->color();       # prints "vermilion"

       Each of these objects' colors is now "vermilion", because
       that's the meta-object's value for that attribute, and
       these objects do not have individual color values set.

       Changing the attribute on one object has no effect on
       other objects previously created.

           print $ob3->color();        # prints "chartreuse"
           print  $ob1->color();         #  prints   "vermilion",

       If you now use $ob3 to spawn off another object, the new
       object will take the color its parent held, which now happens
 to be "chartreuse".  That's because the constructor
       uses the invoking object as its template for initializing
       attributes.  When that invoking object is the class name,
       the object used as a template is the eponymous
       meta-object.  When the invoking object is a reference to
       an instantiated object, the &spawn constructor uses that
       existing object as a template.

           $ob4 = $ob3->spawn();       # $ob3 now  template,  not
           print $ob4->color();        # prints "chartreuse"

       Any actual values set on the template object will be
       copied to the new object.  But attributes undefined in the
       template object, being translucent, will remain undefined
       and consequently translucent in the new one as well.

       Now let's change the color attribute on the entire class:

           print $ob1->color();        # prints "azure"
           print $ob2->color();        # prints "azure"
           print $ob3->color();        # prints "chartreuse"
           print $ob4->color();        # prints "chartreuse"

       That color change took effect only in the first pair of
       objects, which were still translucently accessing the
       meta-object's values.  The second pair had per-object initialized
 colors, and so didn't change.

       One important question remains.  Changes to the metaobject
 are reflected in translucent attributes in the
       entire  class, but what about changes to discrete objects?
       If you change the color of $ob3, does the value of $ob4
       see that change?  Or vice-versa.  If you change the color
       of $ob4, does then the value of $ob3 shift?

           print $ob3->color();        # prints "amethyst"
           print $ob4->color();         #  hmm:  "chartreuse"  or

       While one could argue that in certain rare cases it
       should, let's not do that.  Good taste aside, we want the
       answer to the question posed in the comment above to be
       "chartreuse", not "amethyst".  So we'll treat these
       attributes similar to the way process attributes like
       environment variables, user and group IDs, or the current
       working directory are treated across a fork().  You can
       change only yourself, but you will see those changes
       reflected in your unspawned children.  Changes to one
       object will propagate neither up to the parent nor down to
       any existing child objects.  Those objects made later,
       however, will see the changes.

       If you have an object with an actual attribute value, and
       you want to make that object's attribute value translucent
       again, what do you do?  Let's design the class so that
       when you invoke an accessor method with "undef" as its
       argument, that attribute returns to translucency.

           $ob4->color(undef);         # back to "azure"

       Here's a complete implementation of Vermin as described

           package Vermin;

           # here's the class meta-object, eponymously named.
           # it holds all class attributes, and also all instance
           # so the latter can be used for both initialization
           # and translucency.

           our %Vermin = (             # our() is new to perl5.6
               PopCount => 0,          # capital  for  class  attributes
               color     =>  "beige",    # small for instance attributes
           # constructor method
           # invoked as class method or object method
           sub spawn {
               my $obclass = shift;
               my $class   = ref($obclass) || $obclass;
               my $self = {};
               bless($self, $class);
               # init fields from invoking object, or omit if
               # invoking object is the class to provide translucency
               %$self = %$obclass if ref $obclass;
               return $self;

           # translucent accessor for "color" attribute
           # invoked as class method or object method
           sub color {
               my $self  = shift;
               my $class = ref($self) || $self;

               # handle class invocation
               unless (ref $self) {
                   $class->{color} = shift if @_;
                   return $class->{color}

               # handle object invocation
               $self->{color} = shift if @_;
               if (defined $self->{color}) {  # not exists!
                   return $self->{color};
               } else {
                   return $class->{color};

           # accessor for "PopCount" class attribute
           # invoked as class method or object method
           # but uses object solely to locate meta-object
           sub population {
               my $obclass = shift;
               my $class   = ref($obclass) || $obclass;
               return $class->{PopCount};

           # instance destructor
           # invoked only as object method
           sub DESTROY {
               my $self  = shift;
               my $class = ref $self;

       Here are a couple of helper methods that might be convenient.
  They aren't accessor methods at all.  They're used
       to detect accessibility of data attributes.  The
       &is_translucent method determines whether a particular
       object attribute is coming from the meta-object.  The
       &has_attribute method detects whether a class implements a
       particular property at all.  It could also be used to distinguish
 undefined properties from non-existent ones.

           # detect whether an object attribute is translucent
           # (typically?) invoked only as object method
           sub is_translucent {
               my($self, $attr)  = @_;
               return !defined $self->{$attr};

           # test for presence of attribute in class
           # invoked as class method or object method
           sub has_attribute {
               my($self, $attr)  = @_;
               my $class = ref($self) || $self;
               return exists $class->{$attr};

       If you prefer to install your accessors more generically,
       you can make use of the upper-case versus lower-case convention
 to register into the package appropriate methods
       cloned from generic closures.

           for my $datum (keys %{ +__PACKAGE__ }) {
               *$datum = ($datum =~ /^[A-Z]/)
                   ? sub {  # install class accessor
                           my $obclass = shift;
                           my $class   =  ref($obclass)  ||  $obclass;
                           return $class->{$datum};
                   : sub { # install translucent accessor
                           my $self  = shift;
                           my $class = ref($self) || $self;
                           unless (ref $self) {
                               $class->{$datum} = shift if @_;
                               return $class->{$datum}
                           $self->{$datum} = shift if @_;
                           return defined $self->{$datum}
                               ? $self  -> {$datum}
                               : $class -> {$datum}

       Translations of this closure-based approach into C++,
       Java, and Python have been left as exercises for the
       reader.  Be sure to send us mail as soon as you're done.

Class Data as Lexical Variables    [Toc]    [Back]

       Privacy and Responsibility

       Unlike conventions used by some Perl programmers, in the
       previous examples, we didn't prefix the package variables
       used for class attributes with an underscore, nor did we
       do so for the names of the hash keys used for instance
       attributes.  You don't need little markers on data names
       to suggest nominal privacy on attribute variables or hash
       keys, because these are already notionally private!  Outsiders
 have no business whatsoever playing with anything
       within a class save through the mediated access of its
       documented interface; in other words, through method invocations.
  And not even through just any method, either.
       Methods that begin with an underscore are traditionally
       considered off-limits outside the class.  If outsiders
       skip the documented method interface to poke around the
       internals of your class and end up breaking something,
       that's not your fault--it's theirs.

       Perl believes in individual responsibility rather than
       mandated control.  Perl respects you enough to let you
       choose your own preferred level of pain, or of pleasure.
       Perl believes that you are creative, intelligent, and
       capable of making your own decisions--and fully expects
       you to take complete responsibility for your own  actions.
       In a perfect world, these admonitions alone would suffice,
       and everyone would be intelligent, responsible, happy, and
       creative.  And careful.  One probably shouldn't forget
       careful, and that's a good bit harder to expect.  Even
       Einstein would take wrong turns by accident and end up
       lost in the wrong part of town.

       Some folks get the heebie-jeebies when they see package
       variables hanging out there for anyone to reach over and
       alter them.  Some folks live in constant fear that someone
       somewhere might do something wicked.  The solution to that
       problem is simply to fire the wicked, of course.  But
       unfortunately, it's not as simple as all that.  These cautious
 types are also afraid that they or others will do
       something not so much wicked as careless, whether by accident
 or out of desperation.  If we fire everyone who ever
       gets careless, pretty soon there won't be anybody left to
       get any work done.

       Whether it's needless paranoia or sensible caution, this
       uneasiness can be a problem for some people.  We can take
       the edge off their discomfort by providing the option of
       storing class attributes as lexical variables instead of
       as package variables.  The my() operator is the source of
       all privacy in Perl, and it is a powerful form of privacy

       It is widely perceived, and indeed has often been written,
       that Perl provides no data hiding, that it affords the
       class designer no privacy nor isolation, merely a rag-tag
       assortment of weak and unenforcible social conventions
       instead.  This perception is demonstrably false and easily
       disproven.  In the next section, we show how to implement
       forms of privacy that are far stronger than those provided
       in nearly any other object-oriented language.

       File-Scoped Lexicals    [Toc]    [Back]

       A lexical variable is visible only through the end of its
       static scope.  That means that the only code able to
       access that variable is code residing textually below the
       my() operator through the end of its block if it has one,
       or through the end of the current file if it doesn't.

       Starting again with our simplest example given at the
       start of this document, we replace our() variables with
       my() versions.

           package Some_Class;
           my($CData1, $CData2);   # file scope, not in any package
           sub CData1 {
               shift;  # XXX: ignore calling class/object
               $CData1 = shift if @_;
               return $CData1;
           sub CData2 {
               shift;  # XXX: ignore calling class/object
               $CData2 = shift if @_;
               return $CData2;

       So much for that old $Some_Class::CData1 package variable
       and its brethren!  Those are gone now, replaced with lexicals.
  No one outside the scope can reach in and alter the
       class state without resorting to the documented interface.
       Not even subclasses or superclasses of this one have
       unmediated access to $CData1.  They have to invoke the
       &CData1 method against Some_Class or an instance thereof,
       just like anybody else.

       To be scrupulously honest, that last statement assumes you
       haven't packed several classes together into the same file
       scope, nor strewn your class implementation across several
       different files.  Accessibility of those variables is
       based uniquely on the static file scope.  It has nothing
       to do with the package.  That means that code in a different
 file but the same package (class) could not access
       those variables, yet code in the same file but a different
       package (class) could.  There are sound reasons why we
       usually suggest a one-to-one mapping between files and
       packages and modules and classes.  You don't have to stick
       to this suggestion if you really know what you're doing,
       but you're apt to confuse yourself otherwise, especially
       at first.

       If you'd like to aggregate your class attributes into one
       lexically scoped, composite structure, you're perfectly
       free to do so.

           package Some_Class;
           my %ClassData = (
               CData1 => "",
               CData2 => "",
           sub CData1 {
               shift;  # XXX: ignore calling class/object
               $ClassData{CData1} = shift if @_;
               return $ClassData{CData1};
           sub CData2 {
               shift;  # XXX: ignore calling class/object
               $ClassData{CData2} = shift if @_;
               return $ClassData{CData2};

       To make this more scalable as other class attributes are
       added, we can again register closures into the package
       symbol table to create accessor methods for them.

           package Some_Class;
           my %ClassData = (
               CData1 => "",
               CData2 => "",
           for my $datum (keys %ClassData) {
               no strict "refs";
               *$datum = sub {
                   shift;      # XXX: ignore calling class/object
                   $ClassData{$datum} = shift if @_;
                   return $ClassData{$datum};

       Requiring even your own class to use accessor methods like
       anybody else is probably a good thing.  But demanding and
       expecting that everyone else, be they subclass or superclass,
 friend or foe, will all come to your object through
       mediation is more than just a good idea.  It's absolutely
       critical to the model.  Let there be in your mind no such
       thing as "public" data, nor even "protected" data, which
       is a seductive but ultimately destructive notion.  Both
       will come back to bite at you.  That's because as soon as
       you take that first step out of the solid position in
       which all state is considered completely private, save
       from the perspective of its own accessor methods, you have
       violated the envelope.  And, having pierced that encapsulating
 envelope, you shall doubtless someday pay the price
       when future changes in the implementation break unrelated
       code.  Considering that avoiding this infelicitous outcome
       was precisely why you consented to suffer the slings and
       arrows of obsequious abstraction by turning to object orientation
 in the first place, such breakage seems unfortunate
 in the extreme.

       More Inheritance Concerns    [Toc]    [Back]

       Suppose that Some_Class were used as a base class from
       which to derive Another_Class.  If you invoke a &CData
       method on the derived class or on an object of that class,
       what do you get?  Would the derived class have its own
       state, or would it piggyback on its base class's versions
       of the class attributes?

       The answer is that under the scheme outlined above, the
       derived class would not have its own state data.  As
       before, whether you consider this a good thing or a bad
       one depends on the semantics of the classes involved.

       The cleanest, sanest, simplest way to address per-class
       state in a lexical is for the derived class to override
       its base class's version of the method that accesses the
       class attributes.  Since the actual method called is the
       one in the object's derived class if this exists, you
       automatically get per-class state this way.  Any urge to
       provide an unadvertised method to sneak out a reference to
       the %ClassData hash should be strenuously resisted.

       As with any other overridden method, the implementation in
       the derived class always has the option of invoking its
       base class's version of the method in addition to its own.
       Here's an example:

           package Another_Class;
           @ISA = qw(Some_Class);

           my %ClassData = (
               CData1 => "",

           sub CData1 {
               my($self, $newvalue) = @_;
               if (@_ > 1) {
                   # set locally first
                   $ClassData{CData1} = $newvalue;
                   # then pass the buck up to the first
                   # overridden version, if there is one
                   if ($self->can("SUPER::CData1")) {
               return $ClassData{CData1};

       Those dabbling in multiple inheritance might be concerned
       about there being more than one override.

           for my $parent (@ISA) {
               my $methname = $parent . "::CData1";
               if ($self->can($methname)) {

       Because the &UNIVERSAL::can method returns a reference to
       the function directly, you can use this directly for a
       significant performance improvement:

           for my $parent (@ISA) {
               if  (my  $coderef  =  $self->can($parent . "::CData1")) {

       Locking the Door and Throwing Away the Key    [Toc]    [Back]

       As currently implemented, any code within the same scope
       as the file-scoped lexical %ClassData can alter that hash
       directly.  Is that ok?  Is it acceptable or even desirable
       to allow other parts of the implementation of this class
       to access class attributes directly?

       That depends on how careful you want to be.  Think back to
       the Cosmos class.  If the &supernova method had directly
       altered $Cosmos::Stars or $Cosmos::Cosmos{stars}, then we
       wouldn't have been able to reuse the class when it came to
       inventing a Multiverse.  So letting even the class itself
       access its own class attributes without the mediating
       intervention of properly designed accessor methods is
       probably not a good idea after all.

       Restricting access to class attributes from the class
       itself is usually not enforcible even in strongly objectoriented
 languages.  But in Perl, you can.

       Here's one way:

           package Some_Class;
           {  # scope for hiding $CData1
               my $CData1;
               sub CData1 {
                   shift;      # XXX: unused
                   $CData1 = shift if @_;
                   return $CData1;

           {  # scope for hiding $CData2
               my $CData2;
               sub CData2 {
                   shift;      # XXX: unused
                   $CData2 = shift if @_;
                   return $CData2;

       No one--absolutely no one--is allowed to read or write the
       class attributes without the mediation of the managing
       accessor method, since only that method has access to the
       lexical variable it's managing.  This use of mediated
       access to class attributes is a form of privacy far
       stronger than most OO languages provide.

       The repetition of code used to create per-datum accessor
       methods chafes at our Laziness, so we'll again use closures
 to create similar methods.

           package Some_Class;

           {  # scope for ultra-private meta-object for class attributes
               my %ClassData = (
                   CData1 => "",
                   CData2 => "",

               for my $datum (keys %ClassData ) {
                   no strict "refs";
                   *$datum = sub {
                       use strict "refs";
                       my ($self, $newvalue) = @_;
                       $ClassData{$datum} = $newvalue if @_ > 1;
                       return $ClassData{$datum};


       The closure above can be modified to take inheritance into
       account using the &UNIVERSAL::can method and SUPER as
       shown previously.
       Translucency Revisited

       The Vermin class demonstrates translucency using a package
       variable, eponymously named %Vermin, as its meta-object.
       If you prefer to use absolutely no package variables
       beyond those necessary to appease inheritance or possibly
       the Exporter, this strategy is closed to you.  That's too
       bad, because translucent attributes are an appealing technique,
 so it would be valuable to devise an implementation
       using only lexicals.

       There's a second reason why you might wish to avoid the
       eponymous package hash.  If you use class names with double-colons
 in them, you would end up poking around somewhere
 you might not have meant to poke.

           package Vermin;
           $class = "Vermin";
           # accesses $Vermin::Vermin{PopCount}

           package Vermin::Noxious;
           $class = "Vermin::Noxious";
           # accesses $Vermin::Noxious{PopCount}

       In the first case, because the class name had no double-colons,
 we got the hash in the current package.  But
       in the second case, instead of getting some hash in the
       current package, we got the hash %Noxious in the Vermin
       package.  (The noxious vermin just invaded another package
       and sprayed their data around it. :-) Perl doesn't support
       relative packages in its naming conventions, so any double-colons
 trigger a fully-qualified lookup instead of
       just looking in the current package.

       In practice, it is unlikely that the Vermin class had an
       existing package variable named %Noxious that you just
       blew away.  If you're still mistrustful, you could always
       stake out your own territory where you know the rules,
       such as using Eponymous::Vermin::Noxious or Hieronymus::Vermin::Boschious
 or Leave_Me_Alone::Vermin::Noxious
       as class names instead.  Sure, it's in theory possible
       that someone else has a class named Eponymous::Vermin with
       its own %Noxious hash, but this kind of thing is always
       true.  There's no arbiter of package names.  It's always
       the case that globals like @Cwd::ISA would collide if more
       than one class uses the same Cwd package.

       If this still leaves you with an uncomfortable twinge of
       paranoia, we have another solution for you.  There's nothing
 that says that you have to have a package variable to
       hold a class meta-object, either for monadic classes or
       for translucent attributes.  Just code up the methods so
       that they access a lexical instead.

       Here's another implementation of the Vermin class with
       semantics identical to those given previously, but this
       time using no package variables.

           package Vermin;

           # Here's the class meta-object, eponymously named.
           # It holds all class data, and also all instance data
           # so the latter can be used for both initialization
           # and translucency.  it's a template.
           my %ClassData = (
               PopCount => 0,          # capital  for  class  attributes
               color     =>  "beige",    # small for instance attributes

           # constructor method
           # invoked as class method or object method
           sub spawn {
               my $obclass = shift;
               my $class   = ref($obclass) || $obclass;
               my $self = {};
               bless($self, $class);
               # init fields from invoking object, or omit if
               # invoking object is the class to provide translucency
               %$self = %$obclass if ref $obclass;
               return $self;

           # translucent accessor for "color" attribute
           # invoked as class method or object method
           sub color {
               my $self  = shift;

               # handle class invocation
               unless (ref $self) {
                   $ClassData{color} = shift if @_;
                   return $ClassData{color}

               # handle object invocation
               $self->{color} = shift if @_;
               if (defined $self->{color}) {  # not exists!
                   return $self->{color};
               } else {
                   return $ClassData{color};
           # class attribute accessor for "PopCount" attribute
           # invoked as class method or object method
           sub population {
               return $ClassData{PopCount};

           # instance destructor; invoked only as object method
           sub DESTROY {

           # detect whether an object attribute is translucent
           # (typically?) invoked only as object method
           sub is_translucent {
               my($self, $attr)  = @_;
               $self = ClassData if !ref $self;
               return !defined $self->{$attr};

           # test for presence of attribute in class
           # invoked as class method or object method
           sub has_attribute {
               my($self, $attr)  = @_;
               return exists $ClassData{$attr};

NOTES    [Toc]    [Back]

       Inheritance is a powerful but subtle device, best used
       only after careful forethought and design.  Aggregation
       instead of inheritance is often a better approach.

       You can't use file-scoped lexicals in c

 Similar pages
Name OS Title
perlthrtut OpenBSD tutorial on threads in Perl
perldebtut OpenBSD Perl debugging tutorial
perlothrtut OpenBSD old tutorial on threads in Perl
perlretut OpenBSD Perl regular expressions tutorial
perlopentut OpenBSD tutorial on opening things in Perl
perltoot IRIX Tom's object-oriented tutorial for perl
perltoot OpenBSD Tom's object-oriented tutorial for perl
perljp OpenBSD AEuEU,i Perl Y~YxYE `A^a`I`A Perl xIAx3|xOxex|x3x1/2! Perl 5.8.0 xexeicUni- _ codeYuYYi1/4YEx~AcEyxE...
perldata IRIX Perl data types
perldata OpenBSD Perl data types
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
newsletter delivery service