Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> That's pretty close to what I was thinking of, but I don't think the
> constructors actually have to be special. What if "my Date $date;" lets the
> compiler know that $date belongs to the Date class, even if it's undef? If
> that's the case you could call static functions as $date.foo() instead of
> Date.foo(), and therefore your constructor call would be simply
>
> my Date $date .= new('Jun 25, 20002');Hmmmm. That's a very interesting idea. I like it. Damian
