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 Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:48, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Over on perl6-internals you've been talking about the need for
> Associations. Is the addition of associations all that's missing from
> Parrot to support "exporting object relationships in a sensible and
> consistent manner"?
A prudent question.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:16:40AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
: > Like mixins? Perhaps something like this:
: >
: > class My::Class;
: > mixin My::Random::Number::Generator qw( rand );
: > mixin My::Serialisation::Marshall qw( freeze thaw );
:
: Yey! With this, the Perl6-o-meter now stands
Sam Vilain wrote:
Associations *are* fundamental object things. Presenting them in terms of
attributes is the real hack.
I agree with this statement; and Brent previously asked what
associations *are*. The problem with describing them in terms of
attributes/properties not not so much that its a
Sam Vilain wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 05:10, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Several people have mentioned a desire to see Perl6
> > and Parrot facilitate object persistence. Should
> > such issues be tackled in Parrot?
>
> Not necessarily. Just be friendly to object persistence
> frameworks by e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Wardley) writes:
> Like mixins? Perhaps something like this:
>
> class My::Class;
> mixin My::Random::Number::Generator qw( rand );
> mixin My::Serialisation::Marshall qw( freeze thaw );
Yey! With this, the Perl6-o-meter now stands at:
PERL 5
Sam Vilain wrote:
> No. All I'm saying is that this sort of construct:
>
>*{$_} = \&{"Class::$_"} foreach (qw(method method2 method3));
Like mixins? Perhaps something like this:
class My::Class;
mixin My::Random::Number::Generator qw( rand );
mixin My::Serialisation::Marshall qw( fre
