On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:25:05AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > I'll have to think about the rest of your proposal, but I was suddenly > struck with the thought that our "platonic" Class objects are really > forms of undef: > > say defined IO; # prints 0
Hmm, bool::false stringifies to '0'? Also, isn't IO an instance of Class, and hence defined? My current understanding is that the typechecker considers IO to be of Class type, not of IO type; the fact that IO.does(IO) is true is purely an illusion created by special dispatch for .does. Am I way off base? :) Thanks, /Autrijus/
pgpyl9MZNA633.pgp
Description: PGP signature
