--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "$p1 must be like a Point, but it needn't actually > > be a Point. Both $p2 and the return value must be the same type of > > thing that $p1 is." > > That was always my goal for roles in the first place. I'll be a > little sad if > Perl 6 requires an explicit notation to behave correctly here -- that > is, if > the default check is for subtyping, not polymorphic equivalence.
I had initially thought this, but think about the case where someone wants to rewrite something to be compliant to another interface. If I pass a CGI::Simple object to a method expecting a CGI object, there's an excellent chance that it will *just work*, even though there's no relation between the two. In this case, a role really doesn't work. Of course, the '£' might not work either since we're not specifying that we only need a subset of the behavior to work properly. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/ Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/ Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
