"You are to chop down the largest tree in the forest with... A HERRING!"
I've been following this whole per-object inheritance thing, .ISA,
etc... and one thing keeps coming to mind.
Why does this have to be in the core language?
First, its a relatively obscure feature. Per-object inherita
I'd think that @ISA would be copied to .ISA on object instantiation, and
after that the two wouldn't have anything to do with each other. We could
set up one of those cool copy-on-write locks everyone's been talking about
to save memory too.
Or we could have it default to @ISA if .ISA doesn't ex
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:48:38 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>And the current @ISA stuff is MI,
>albeit on a per-class basis rather than on a per-object one.
>
>Anyway, as Damian mentioned, setting the .ISA property is a perfectly
>reasonable sort of thing to do if the language supports this.
Just
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > So every class has a vtable, which is a copy of its parents except for
> > what is overridden within it, and a instance that wishes to
> > deviate could make a local copy of its vtable and twiddle it.
> Why not just fall back to the ancestor(s) unless it provides its o
At 09:51 AM 6/28/2001 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: David L. Nicol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > "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 me
> > 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...
>
> Wasn't Damian working on something like this? I looked at his
> delegation stuff in perl5+i, but it didn't
From: David L. Nicol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> "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
Oh yeah. Look at Class::Classless.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
Maybe they hooked you up with one of those ass-making magazines.
-- brian d. foy as misheard by Mic
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:00:40PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> For the distinction between methods vs members, I don't think
> we have to stray too far from perl-is-perl. Afterall, we already
> know that &foo is a function and $foo is a scalar. So from an
> implementation perspective there's no pr
