Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-18 Thread J. David Blackstone
Larry Wall wrote: > The main downside of accessors is that you can't (currently) say > > local $obj->attribute = 2; Is anyone thinking of this? This comes at a good time when I've been looking for just such an idea to shore up one of my proposals on perl6-language-strict. J. David

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-18 Thread David L. Nicol
Peter Scott wrote: > > At 05:12 AM 8/19/00 +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > >> The main downside of accessors is that you can't (currently) say > >> > >> local $obj->attribute = 2; > > > >Even if C returns an lvalue??? > > If it does, how do you localize it? What would that mean?

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-18 Thread Peter Scott
At 05:12 AM 8/19/00 +1000, Damian Conway wrote: >> The main downside of accessors is that you can't (currently) say >> >> local $obj->attribute = 2; > >Even if C returns an lvalue??? If it does, how do you localize it? What would that mean? -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-18 Thread Damian Conway
> The main downside of accessors is that you can't (currently) say > > local $obj->attribute = 2; Even if C returns an lvalue??? Damian

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-18 Thread John Siracusa
On 8/18/00 11:56 AM, Larry Wall wrote: > I'm not sure we have to throw out the orthogonality of OO to data > structure to get what you want. Do you mean orthogonality of syntax or implementation? Or both? It seems like it might be both cleaner and easier to allow "Perl 5 o-o" to live on largely

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-18 Thread Larry Wall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : To put it another way, no one should ever be tempted to do this: : : $obj->{'attribute'} : : for efficiency reasons inside a tight loop or what have you. (And no, : the solution is not to "use C when you need efficiency." I shouldn't : need to use portable assem

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-18 Thread Piers Cawley
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd like to say that I whole-heartedly endorse the sentiments expressed in > this RFC (and *not* just because it likes my book! ;-) Well, it is a very good book... > Well done, John. Seconded. -- Piers

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-17 Thread Damian Conway
I'd like to say that I whole-heartedly endorse the sentiments expressed in this RFC (and *not* just because it likes my book! ;-) It will definitely underpin my thinking when I finally put together my own OO RFCs. Well done, John. Damian

READ THIS: Take it to -objects! (was Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future)

2000-08-17 Thread Nathan Wiger
Everyone: Please continue this discussion on -objects. Thanks. -Nate Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > > This and other RFCs are available on the web at > http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ > > =head1 TITLE > > Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future > > =head1 VERSION > > Maintainer: John Siracusa

RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-17 Thread Perl6 RFC Librarian
This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future =head1 VERSION Maintainer: John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Aug 16 2000 Version: 1 Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Number: 126 =head1 ABS