--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 12:04 PM, Mark Biggar wrote:
> > What we do need is some way of bundling a bunch of traits together
> > under a simple name.
>
> Yes, yes, yes.
>
> > Defining a Class for this is also overkill.
>
> Ye.. well, no. Why?
>
Unless you mean trait-classes, because I may want the same common set
of traits to apply to multiple distinct things (different classes,
objects, whatever).
So:
type cat_table is Hash of Array of Array of Hash is traits_only;
or
type cat_table is Hash of Array of Array of Hash;
More to the point:
type sigfunc is interrupt is reentrant;
sub sig_ign() is sigfunc {...}
sub sig_kill() is sigfunc {...}
sub sig_intr() is sigfunc {...}
type null but defined but false;
...
return undef but null;
=Austin
> > So instead of saying:
> >
> > my %pet is Hash of Array of Array of Hash of Array of Cat;
> > sub feed (%cats is Hash of Array of Array of Hash
> > of Array of Cat) {...}
> > You could say
> >
> > trait cat_table is Hash of Array of Array of Hash
> > of Array of Cat;
> > my cat_table %pet;
> > sub feed (cat_table %cats) {...}
>
> I think classes are not necessarily the heavyweights some people
> might
> expect them to be... I think of them more as types, actually.
> Basically, if you replaced the word 'trait' with 'class', I think the
>
> current plan is that you can do exactly what you're suggesting:
>
> class CatTable is Hash of Array of Array of Hash of Array of
> Cat;
>
> my %pet is CatTable;
> sub feed (%cats is CatTable);
>
> (note I fixed the last lines to use the right syntax... before, you
> were actually saying that %pet was a Hash of CatTables...)
>
> MikeL
>
