Re: apo 2

[Buddha Buck]

At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > And btw . . .  Wouldn't
> >
> >       $thing has property
> >
> > make more sense than
> >
> >       $thing is property
>
>"$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as "$foo is true".  Dunno quite
>what the other expected uses are.

Maybe "has" and "is", used in this context, could be synonyms?

   my NetFile $page has url("http://www.perl.com/";);
   $page is constant;

or maybe

   my Netfile $page has url("http://www.perl.com/";) is constant;

(can properties stack like that?)

I think it depends on the property whether "has" or "is" is grammatically 
correct.

Or we could have a policy that all example-properties have the 
"has-nature".  Instead of:

   $foo is true;
   $foo is true(1);
   $foo is true(0);

we would have:

   $foo has truth;
   $foo has truth(1);
   $foo has truth(0);

Or some such...