Brent Dax wrote:
>
> Dan Sugalski:
> # Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> # especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> # much appreciate it.
[snip]
> I honestly don't care much about such languages, but how is Parrot
> going to support classless languages like JavaScript? Are such
> languages going to have to fake it with anonymous classes, or will we
> make sure that you don't *really* need a class behind an object?
Presumably, the similarly to how Java handles JavaScript -- all
JavaScript objects are, from Java's point of view, members of one single
class, the "JavaScriptObject" class. (Well, something like that,
anyway).
--
$;=qq qJ,krleahciPhueerarsintoitq;sub __{0 &&
my$__;s ee substr$;,$,&&++$__%$,--,1,qq;;;ee;
$__>2&&&__}$,=22+$;=~y yiy y;__ while$;;print
