Re: properties

2001-05-22 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:10:55AM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote: > What is UNIVERSAL::can($foo, 'new') going to return if there is a variable > and/or value property 'new' set on $foo? undef if there is no "new" method. > To my knowledge, no one has yet proposed how you can clear a user-defined >

RE: properties

2001-05-22 Thread Garrett Goebel
From: Graham Barr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Tue, May 22, 2001, Damian Conway wrote: > > > if so, then wouldn't it be safer to put properties > > > inside a special object associated with each object > > > (the 'traits' object) so there would be little > > > namespace collision? > > > > We

RE: Properties, deleting them, and dump

2001-05-22 Thread Carl Johan Berglund
At 09.46 -0500 01-05-22, Garrett Goebel wrote: >I would rather the bike shed be painted: > >@var_prop = keys $foo.is; >@val_prop = keys $foo.value.is; The btw/prop/value_is/variable_is/is method(s) will return a reference to the properties hash, so Perl 6 will certainly support getting the keys

Re: properties

2001-05-22 Thread Dave Storrs
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Graham Barr wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:29:33PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > > > > We actually want the possibility of that kind of namespace collision: > > for polymorphism. > > Many people keep bringig this up as a confusion and you give the same reply. > > Wi

RE: Properties, deleting them, and dump

2001-05-22 Thread Garrett Goebel
From: Carl Johan Berglund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Other than that, I think I like Larry's idea to have one variable_is > and one value_is method. I would also very much have Data::Dumper > built in as 'dump', so that I could say I would rather the bike shed be painted: @var_prop = keys

Properties, deleting them, and dump

2001-05-22 Thread Carl Johan Berglund
At 08.53 +0100 01-05-22, Graham Barr wrote: >With the current approach I can see most code accessing properties >with $var.prop{name} >because they want to make sure they get the property and not a method, whereas >it would be shorter, in the common case, to have something like $var'name I woul

Re: properties

2001-05-22 Thread Graham Barr
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:29:33PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: >> if so, then wouldn't it be safer to put properties inside a special object >> associated with each object (the 'traits' object) so there would be little >> namespace collision? > > We actually want the possibility of th