On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:30:02PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> David L. Nicol wrote:
> > Yet another minor candidate for regularization.
>
> (Hush, David, Don't say that. Perl should stay Perl! ;-)
Okay, I clearly missed out on some heated discussion about the
``Perl bleibt Perl'' RFC. I'll dive
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:36:34PM +0200, Trond Michelsen wrote:
> The downside is of course that I need to make a small stub for every
> single function I want to delegate.
Well, that's relatively simple to automate...
%Delegations = ( foo=> '_This',
bar
* Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06/25/2001 13:20]:
>
> But one could also imagine that Perl 6 might allow individual objects to
> have an C property that pre-empted their class's C<@ISA> array.
At some point, it is probably worth talking about Perl's ALLCAPS subs
for special methods. For ex
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:05:42PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >In Perl5 I am forced to create 4 new classes:
> >Employed_Male, Employed_Female, Unemployed_Male,
> >Unemployed_Female. The combinatorial explosion can,
> >well, explode!
>
> What's wrong with multiple inheritance?
You get a maze of
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:44:06AM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> When you blass an object in Perl, you give it exactly
> one type. The @ISA variable allows that type to refer
> to many other classes as the inheritance tree. @ISA
> is a list, but ref($obj) isn't. This means that you
> sometimes have
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> Basically my preference, if we're going with a per-object .ISA with no
> class ISA fallback, is for each object to be independent and not affect any
> other object when its properties are messed with.
I'm straining to understand the subtle distinction btwn per-object ISA
"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
> But you're opening a big can of worms if you make such a
> change. The biggest impact would be in the way methods are defined.
> Instead of just being members of a package, they would have to be
> associated with particular objects (classes or instances). A method
> may
David L. Nicol wrote:
> Yet another minor candidate for regularization.
(Hush, David, Don't say that. Perl should stay Perl! ;-)
--
John Porter
John Porter wrote:
> without any kind of data aggregation, as in most other OO
> languages, what else is there to inheritance but late binding
> of methods?
Early checking of method name validity?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187
ftp:
David Whipp wrote:
>
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > Okay, but now we're getting into the fundamental O-O model for
> > Perl. I guess that's fair game? You can certainly make the case
> > that prototype-based inheritance makes at least as much sense
> > as class-based inheritance for a dynamic langua
At 03:52 PM 6/27/2001 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Should it be the fallback *only* if an object doesn't have its own ISA, or
> > should we walk the class ISA if walking the object ISA fails? I can see it
> > being sensible either way.
>
>Oh. Good question. I'm not sure how
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Okay, but now we're getting into the fundamental O-O model for
> Perl. I guess that's fair game? You can certainly make the case
> that prototype-based inheritance makes at least as much sense
> as class-based inheritance for a dynamic language like Perl.
> But that's a maj
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> > Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > > ... be sure that "Perl stays Perl".
> > Eh, puke.
> I'm sorry?
"Keep Perl Perl" is a non-argument. And if you haven't heard me
rail against it yet, you haven't been around very long.
I think someone hits this tripwire at le
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Should it be the fallback *only* if an object doesn't have its own ISA, or
> should we walk the class ISA if walking the object ISA fails? I can see it
> being sensible either way.
Oh. Good question. I'm not sure how it's done in prototype-OO langs.
I would think that if
At 03:07 PM 6/27/2001 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Anyway, as long as the class-level @ISA (or Class.ISA, hopefully)
>is the fall-back default for any instance that doesn't have its
>own .ISA set, then current semantics are retained.
Should it be the fallback *only* if an object doesn't have its ow
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:07:36PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > ... be sure that "Perl stays Perl".
>
> Eh, puke.
I'm sorry? If you don't like Perl as it is, why do you care what happens
to it in the future? But the RFC on Perl remaining Perl has been accepted,
so let's m
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> ... be sure that "Perl stays Perl".
Eh, puke.
Anyway, as long as the class-level @ISA (or Class.ISA, hopefully)
is the fall-back default for any instance that doesn't have its
own .ISA set, then current semantics are retained.
--
John Porter
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Basically my preference, if we're going with a per-object .ISA with no
> class ISA fallback, is for each object to be independent and not affect any
> other object when its properties are messed with.
Good; that's the norm in prototype-based OO, and I believe,
in Frame sys
Okay, but now we're getting into the fundamental O-O model for
Perl. I guess that's fair game? You can certainly make the case
that prototype-based inheritance makes at least as much sense
as class-based inheritance for a dynamic language like Perl.
But that's a major implementation change and y
At 11:45 AM 6/27/2001 -0700, Mark Koopman wrote:
>>* Objects are bigger since they all need an .ISA property, if we toss the
>>per-class @ISA
>
>
>with an accessible .ISA property, are previous instaniated objects
>'brought-up-to-speed' with this new behaviour or not?
Depends on what you mean
>
> * Objects are bigger since they all need an .ISA property, if we toss the
> per-class @ISA
>
with an accessible .ISA property, are previous instaniated objects
'brought-up-to-speed' with this new behaviour or not?
--
Mark Koopman
Software Engineer
WebSideStory
10182
At 02:25 PM 6/27/2001 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > * Objects are bigger since they all need an .ISA property, if we toss the
> > per-class @ISA
>
>I certainly like the idea of instance-level inheritance (since
>it's the only way to go in prototype-based OO), but I hope we
>wo
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> * Objects are bigger since they all need an .ISA property, if we toss the
> per-class @ISA
I certainly like the idea of instance-level inheritance (since
it's the only way to go in prototype-based OO), but I hope we
wouldn't sacrifice class-level inheritance for it.
We coul
At 09:57 AM 6/27/2001 -0700, David Whipp wrote:
>When I started this thread, I knew everyone would tell me that
>delegation is the answer: I included the note that I knew about
>that, but I guess the bias against MI is just too strong.
Well, not *everyone* is against it. :) And the current @ISA s
David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> > The other standard solution is to
> > add a "Person has-a Employment_Status" relationship,
> > but that doesn't feel much better.
>
> It feels fine to me. Person has-a gender, person has-a job,
> it's more politically correct, even, than pigeonholing. You
> can even
David Whipp wrote:
> The other standard solution is to
> add a "Person has-a Employment_Status" relationship,
> but that doesn't feel much better.
It feels fine to me. Person has-a gender, person has-a job,
it's more politically correct, even, than pigeonholing. You
can even do dynamic multipl
26 matches
Mail list logo
