Parents (Total: 9)

The searched file hash is included in 9 parent files which include package known and seen by metalookup. A sample is included below:

Key	Value
MD5	CF2705EDE9D2BB6562173563CD848AC7
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	7.1
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	58866CBF873D8B96E9EF4BD02B6FE73F45F918C7
SHA-256	1EDB9933FE2E0F4F3BF1C154A08C1F0020F90815685042435B66FF081A5E03B5

Key	Value
MD5	04ECAA8A2834C9B120C6BA11471F018A
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	lp150.7.1
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	1DE86B16BDBCE82B218161922504A7F45444DAAB
SHA-256	1538982186D5A176189AD543597A6F5D9E25408084ED126B36B1EFA3FC0A2E29

Key	Value
MD5	366F2FF84967F6F6117FA664B285AA74
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	lp152.7.1
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	804B3E09A60D1194BCF7393ED9F9BC26F950D92F
SHA-256	070A62172AADECAD21D349216C49646A46110B81626FDB6DF841085488BBFA8C

Key	Value
MD5	2686D6E88E0433A87FDD708E42558E4C
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	7.1
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	674639FEF1B8D43E60B52C9DDF8B2E616445F02E
SHA-256	DF9660E48A2AD2D71D0EB5F54404F8A052B4B6AA14C939B6CE18220998B3FF19

Key	Value
MD5	27E264F6535B27EEAD4BECFDE9F01282
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	lp151.7.1
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	39C74968333E19F0736CE336C71AF1181C1C97AD
SHA-256	E5F1A54AFA92748308541915A91866E142671D6CFFB299677F1872A7DBF8A9B5

Key	Value
MD5	E710F77AA2876A602F88FEC3F5E281A0
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	7.1
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	9BB0F3710A6F81AC100E86A1337170372C99CBB9
SHA-256	D3D2B66A3965BAD9E12392346E635BC4301DEAC7BC4F1C35C71C42FECA0F8429

Key	Value
MD5	D5C6F9DE7B4B72C4583DA6D2A4B54B04
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	lp153.7.10
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	FF9CE40F644DB15B4E04629DEF0DB57651A792A0
SHA-256	DC2BB80122D1347D5DF93D995A35C26ED158E40ECC3158E250284A36F4D8D529

Key	Value
MD5	D06D9DD3063C2AEE0C3584A9985CE86E
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	7.3
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	4979C9579959EA6E70872284FCEE10CCFAA87BFA
SHA-256	7427714D4A158EEC3CC1BC57F24BF547313580C709C4542FED7125E207E1FD6D

Key	Value
MD5	18F95C3D97741A2573DD3BD6875B26DD
PackageArch	noarch
PackageDescription	Perl 5 doesn't natively support Java-style interfaces, and it doesn't support Perl 6 style roles either. You can get both of these things in half a dozen different ways via various CPAN modules, but they usually require that you buy into "their way" of implementing your code. Other have turned to "duck typing". This is, for the most part, a fairly naive check that says "can you do this method", under the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck". It assumes that if you have a '->quack' method, then they will treat you as a duck, because doing things like adding 'Duck' to your '@ISA' array means you are also forced to take their implementation. There is, of course, a better way. For better or worse, Perl's '->isa' functionality to determine if something is or is not a particular class/object is defined as a *method*, not a function, and so that means that as well as adding something to you '@ISA' array, so that Perl's 'UNIVERSAL::isa' method can work with it, you are also allowed to simply overload your own 'isa' method and answer directly whether or not you are something. The simplest form of the idiom looks like this. sub isa { return 1 if $_[1] eq 'Duck'; shift->SUPER::isa(@_); } This reads "Check my type as normal, but if anyone wants to know if I'm a duck, then tell them yes". Now, there are a few people that have argued that this is "lying" about your class, but this argument is based on the idea that '@ISA' is somehow more "real" than using the method directly. It also assumes that what you advertise you implement needs to be in sync with the method resolution for any given function. But in the best and cleanest implementation of code, the API is orthogonal (although most often related) to the implementation. And although '@ISA' is about implementation *and* API, overloading 'isa' to let you change your API is not at all bad when seen in this light.
PackageName	perl-asa
PackageRelease	7.2
PackageVersion	1.04
SHA-1	7597CB98AAB8F55918094E8B53F93B53E752DD77
SHA-256	C7E07385F6A43D60C47A43C87466B1554524818ECD690AE22EA829B63708613E