"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > method m1
> > {
> > m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
> or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
> do the latter?
Should both be allowed to exist? Do both exist? Why do both exist?
(with the same name). If only one exists, then that would be the one
that gets called.
>
> > .m2; # syntax error
> Doesn't that violate your stated rule that"the default topic within a
> method be the invocant? Shouldn't .m2 be equivalent to $_.m2?
Oops. Yep, got me there. I should have wrapped a "given $non_object"
around that one. Thanks.
--
Glenn
=====
Remember, 84.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
