>What if you want multiple constructors with redundant code, et cetera --
>there is flexibility.
You could get that same flexibility from a mandated new(). If you don't want
to support new, overload it so that it does nothing. Or maybe that could be
the default behavior. The major benefit being a code-supported (but not
enforced) preference that could be relied upon to exist.
Of course, a queriable interface could offer the same sort of thing, at the
expense of an ugly test repeated everywhere.
> Selecting a group of standard class methods and insisting that a CPAN
> upload be compliant with the standard, more restrictive than What The
> Language Lets You Get Awat With -- that makes sense to me.
>
> Perhaps the maintainers of Class::* could converge on a standard API,
> including
> a standard name for what the class mechanism in use in a particular
> instance is.
Perhaps there is a solution offering more TMTOWTDI-ability.
I've seen a "class" keyword offered up as a replacement for package dwelling
classes. What if *those* classes had stricter rules, but "packaged" classes
where allowed to live on, untouched, in festering sin?
> But would the game be worth the candle?
As a rule, I try not to play games involving candles or other flammables.
;-)
- Matt
