Matt Youell wrote:
>
> > > MI thing, but now it's sounding like a constructor bubbling scheme, like
>
>
> Ah, yes. I've had to deal with that problem several times in the past. The
> terminology was new to me, however.
>
> Has there been a proposed solution?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Matt
What's the problem again?
I mean, really, any OO shop has it's local culture, of what the base
classes
are and so forth.
We've got multiple possible working off-the-shelf inheritance systems that
offer various levels of abstraction and various features.
Is there a standard? No. Does there need to be one? I don't see a need
for it.
For introducing New Syntax For Perl Six, which is a game that is Really
Tiresome Since The Suggestions Get Ignored Anyway, what do we want?
A superset of all features available in all OO languages, with a clearly
defined extension declaration system?
Rewriting rules for new syntax, and a standardized shorthand that starts
one
off ahead of where one must now start off?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187
"It's widely known that the 'F' in RTFM is silent." -- Olie
