[Bioperl-l] why string overload is bad
birney at ebi.ac.uk
Tue Jun 28 09:56:39 EDT 2005
>> Not really the spirit of how and for whom Bioperl should be useful. A
>> beginner could have a pretty hard time tracking down the mistake
>> above, let alone the frustration this can generate in the course of
>> such an exercise.
>> Do people really want to go the route of string-overloading the
>> annotation classes? To me it's really over the top and is a step
>> backwards for ease of using the toolkit.
> Hilmar definitely has a point here. Overloading also causes trouble with
> respect to other code- take as an example Devel::ptkdb. Try to inspect a
> variable, that contains or is an object of type Bio::Annotation::*. Of
> course, one can always dump the data, but it is slower and this can be
> rather annoying if you just want to take a peek into something. And I
> have no doubt there would be other packages that fail because of the
I have always been against string overloading. The subtly of the bugs
generated and non-obvious code paths (when Perl wants a number, does
it go via hte string-overloaded case...)
I also (personally) think overloading in C++ is bad. I just think overloading
is bad wherever.
>> Comments, opinions anybody?
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at portal.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l