Php/perl class/package field definition

[Wildpeaks]

My brain must be running slow because of New Year, but I'm missing the
trick to define fields for a package.

In php, I'd do:
----
<?php
class MyObj{
var $param1;
function MyObj(){$this->param1 = "Hello";}
function Hello(){echo $this->param1;}
}
$test = new MyObj;
$test->Hello();
?>
----
However this doesn't seem to be the correct perl translation:
----
package MyObj;
my $param1 = "";
sub new {
my $newobject = {};
bless $newobject;
my $param1 = "Hello";
return $newobject;
}
sub Hello {
print my $param1;
}
$test = new MyObj;
$test->Hello();
----
Ideas anyone ? (besides switching to php, which I unfortunatly can't).

PS: I tried posting on the perl newsgroup first, but Google Groups
didn't seem to be in the mood ("comp.lang.per l doesn't exist", rofl).

[Janwillem Borleffs]

Wildpeaks wrote:

Ideas anyone ? (besides switching to php, which I unfortunatly can't).

sub new {
my $newobject = shift;
bless {};
$param1 = "Hello";
return $newobject;
}
PS: I tried posting on the perl newsgroup first, but Google Groups
didn't seem to be in the mood ("comp.lang.per l doesn't exist", rofl).

http://groups.google.nl/groups?hl=nl...comp.lang.perl

But since this is very basic Perl, the only reply would have been RTFM
anyways ;-)
JW

[Janwillem Borleffs]

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

sub new {
my $newobject = shift;
bless {};
$param1 = "Hello";
return $newobject;
}

To complete my reply, the Hello sub should be as follows:

sub Hello {
print $param1;
}

Now, back to PHP!

JW

[John Bokma]

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

sub new {
my $newobject = shift;
bless {};
$param1 = "Hello";
return $newobject;
}

To complete my reply, the Hello sub should be as follows:

sub Hello {
print $param1;
}

Now, back to PHP!

Yup, since your Perl is bad :-(

package MyObj;

my $param1 = 'Hello';

sub new { return __PACKAGE__ }
sub Hello { print $param1 }

package main;

my $test = new MyObj;
$test->Hello();


--
John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[Wildpeaks]

> > PS: I tried posting on the perl newsgroup first,

but Google Groups didn't seem to be in the mood
("comp.lang.pe rl doesn't exist", rofl). http://groups.google.nl/groups?hl=nl...comp.lang.perl

I *can* view the ng, but when posting, it was refusing
to post at the last step.

But since this is very basic Perl, the only reply
would have been RTFM anyways ;-)

I had RTFM but hadn't find the answer to that precise question,
therefore the post, heh. I post in ng only in last resort.
Ah, PHP is so much easier :-)

[Janwillem Borleffs]

John Bokma wrote:

Yup, since your Perl is bad :-(

You never use strict, don't you?

And please enlighten me why your perl is better, because I don't see it.
JW

[Janwillem Borleffs]

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

John Bokma wrote:

Yup, since your Perl is bad :-(

BTW, it should be __PACKAGE__
JW

[Wildpeaks]

>Yup, since your Perl is bad :-(

[...]

Ah it was one damn word then, thanks :-)

[Janwillem Borleffs]

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

BTW, it should be __PACKAGE__

Nah, you had it right. But I still want to know from you why think that your
syntax is better.
JW

[Janwillem Borleffs]

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

Nah, you had it right. But I still want to know from you why think
that your syntax is better.

The difference appears to be that my constructor adds an anonymous hash to
the object, which isn't used anymore, while your constructor doesn't.

In that context I can see why you think my perl coding is bad...
JW