On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 23:22, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In "[perl #60350] [TODO] default __get_string method", Patrick added a > default Object.Str() that classes can override to get custom > stringification. Formerly, you could do that only by defining a method > named __get_string(). > > Currently, you can overload number context by creating a __get_number() > method and boolean context via __get_bool(). Should there be an analogous > Num() and Bool() method on Object? Would it Num() return 0 by default? And > a default Bool() that returns True? The Failure class would override > negatively, and the container classes could override Num() > > Is this making life harder by making two methods to override, Str() and > __get_string, Num() and __get_number(), Bool() and __get_bool()? Maybe > instead Str(), Bool(), Num() should be magic and automatically get a :vtable > tag via actions.pm? Then maybe we could drop the __get_* counterparts? > > I'd be happy to implement if someone would comment on the best approach. > there's no reason to use leading double-underscore on any of those. it's 'get_string', not '__get_string'. that's ancient history. can you let us know where you came up with that syntax, so we can scrub that bad data?
~jerry
