In simple cases, it is equivalent to:
- $self->next::method(@_) if $self->next_can;
+ $self->next::method(@_) if $self->next::can;
But there are some cases where only this solution
works (like C<goto &maybe::next::method>);
-=head1 PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS
-
-Specifying the mro type of a class before setting C<@ISA> will
-be faster than the other way around. Also, making all of your
-C<@ISA> manipulations in a single assignment statement will be
-faster that doing them one by one via C<push> (which is what
-C<use base> does currently).
-
-Examples:
-
- # The slowest way
- package Foo;
- use base qw/A B C/;
- use mro 'c3';
-
- # The fastest way
- # (not exactly equivalent to above,
- # as base.pm can do other magic)
- use mro 'c3';
- use A ();
- use B ();
- use C ();
- our @ISA = qw/A B C/;
-
-Generally speaking, every time C<@ISA> is modified, the MRO
-of that class will be recalculated, because of the way array
-magic works. Pushing multiple items onto C<@ISA> in one push
-statement still counts as multiple modifications. However,
-assigning a list to C<@ISA> only counts as a single
-modification. Thus if you really need to do C<push> as
-opposed to assignment, C<@ISA = (@ISA, qw/A B C/);>
-will still be faster than C<push(@ISA, qw/A B C/);>
-
=head1 SEE ALSO
=head2 The original Dylan paper