On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 05:51, Austin Hastings wrote:
> You'd like to declare the relationship between them, but this can be
> really difficult (consider e.g., nethack, in which the things you can
> "own" are constrained by weight/volume/knapsack).
> So certainly you need to be able to add code to the
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 05:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Seems like you are thinking along the lines of making Parrot support
> Prevayler-style
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-objprev/index.html
> stuff naturally and with less coding at the top layer. Is that where you
> are he
--- Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Consider this excerpt from the test script:
>
> my $joe = new Person(name => "Joe Average");
> my $car = new Object(description => "Red Car");
>
> $car->set_owner($joe);
>
> ok($joe->posessions->includes($car), "Joe owns car");
How much of Associa
Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
03/05/2003 11:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Associations between classes [was: Re: Object spec]
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 04:19, Paul wrote:
> > Leave them out to carry on with the status quo of a myriad of subtly
> > different, non-interchangable approaches to associating classes.
> TMTOWTDI?
> Still, though your point is valid if I understand it, it will always be
> possible to create "non-interc
