Graham wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 10:36:59PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> > > print keys $foo.prop; # prints "NumberHeard"
> > > print values $foo.prop; # prints "loneliestever"
>
> This is an example of one of my concerns about namespace overlap
> with methods. What would happen if there was a method called prop ?
> Have we basically said that there cannot be a method called prop ?
No, we have basically said that there cannot be a method called prop if you
want to access the object's properties through its prop property.
> Personally I would rather see something other than . for accessing
> properties. As things stand the functionality of a working
> program can be completely changed/broken by defining a sub that
> conflicts with a property.
Er...yes...that's rather the point of the exercise: to be able to
polymorphically override the behaviour of properties by defining
methods.
Should we deprecate inheritance because the functionality of a working
program can be completely changed/broken by defining a derived method
that conflicts with an inherited method?
Damian
