I'm using Moops and I'd like something like this to work:
use Moops;
class A {
fun f {
print "yay,f!\n";
}
}
class B extends A {
fun g {
f();
}
}
B->g(); # should print 'yay, f!'
Instead this yields:
Undefined subroutine &B::f called at static-functions-lexical-scope.pl line 11.
I can "fix" this by inheriting from Exporter in A and a use statement in B like so:
class A extends Exporter {
our @EXPORT = qw(f);
fun f {
print "yay,f!\n";
}
}
class B extends A {
use A;
fun g {
f();
}
}
This seem a bit unwieldy, but it gets worse if A is defined in another file. Then I'd have to add a second use A (require won't do) outside of B like so:
use A;
class B extends A {
use A;
fun g {
f();
}
}
Is there a way to make lexical inclusion (of exported) functions work more elegantly?
First, thanks for using Moops! :-)
Second, it's probably a bad idea to name classes "B" in tests and examples. There's a module called
Bthat comes with Perl, and Moops actually uses it!Coming to your actual question, generally speaking with classes, you should be thinking
methodrather thanfun. Method calls respect inheritance; function calls don't.Outputs:
If you want a library of convenience functions to be available in both
AAAandBBBthen, split those convenience functions into a separate package:Outputs:
You can even go a bit further and extend Moops from within. The following example defines a
:utilstrait that can be added to classes:Same output as previous example.