>What if you want multiple constructors with redundant code, et cetera -- >there is flexibility. You could get that same flexibility from a mandated new(). If you don't want to support new, overload it so that it does nothing. Or maybe that could be the default behavior. The major benefit being a code-supported (but not enforced) preference that could be relied upon to exist. Of course, a queriable interface could offer the same sort of thing, at the expense of an ugly test repeated everywhere. > Selecting a group of standard class methods and insisting that a CPAN > upload be compliant with the standard, more restrictive than What The > Language Lets You Get Awat With -- that makes sense to me. > > Perhaps the maintainers of Class::* could converge on a standard API, > including > a standard name for what the class mechanism in use in a particular > instance is. Perhaps there is a solution offering more TMTOWTDI-ability. I've seen a "class" keyword offered up as a replacement for package dwelling classes. What if *those* classes had stricter rules, but "packaged" classes where allowed to live on, untouched, in festering sin? > But would the game be worth the candle? As a rule, I try not to play games involving candles or other flammables. ;-) - Matt
