On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 12:44, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > So, as you can see, in the case of mixins, the hypothetical:
> >
> > role z {
> > has not mymeth;
> > }
Sorry, my bad. I wandered sideways into talking about methods. "has", of
course, only introduces MEMBERS. It's been kinda rough switching to
getting up early ;-)
"has not $.foo" seems useful to me, but I think there are other, more
useful ways to deal with methods.
> I am just thinking aloud. I do like the proposal at least somewhat, and
> was wondering if it could be used as an aid in refactoring: an easy way to
> comment out methods to see if we have forgotten to change a call
> somewhere.
For methods, yes, it would be a nice way to do that sort of thing, but I
would think it would be more like what you suggested there:
method mymeth(*@){...}
Though, that might not be perfect in some cases, where you want:
exists &{class.mymeth}
to say false.
--
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback
