Hi,
Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ingo Blechschmidt) writes:
>> I think the only thing you're missing are two braces:
>> $.request_class = class is Foo::Request {};
>
> Thank you; then how do I put methods into $.request_class?
$.request_class = class is Foo::Request {
method
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ingo Blechschmidt) writes:
> I think the only thing you're missing are two braces:
> $.request_class = class is Foo::Request {};
Thank you; then how do I put methods into $.request_class?
--
"I will make no bargains with terrorist hardware."
-- Peter da Silva
Hi,
Simon Cozens wrote:
> I'm having a seriously good time porting Maypole to Perl 6. If you
> still have reservations about how Perl 6 is going to be to program in,
> I urge you to try programming in it.
> Now, commercial over, I have some questions.
:)
> class Foo {
> has Cla
Matt Youell wrote:
>
> >What if you want multiple constructors with redundant code, et cetera --
> >there is flexibility.
>
> You could get that same flexibility from a mandated new(). If you don't want
> to support new, overload it so that it does nothing. Or maybe that could be
> the default b
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:41:42PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> But would the game be worth the candle?
IMHO not really. Of all the potential quirks Perl's OO has, this is
one of the least quirky and least violated.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwer
>What if you want multiple constructors with redundant code, et cetera --
>there is flexibility.
You could get that same flexibility from a mandated new(). If you don't want
to support new, overload it so that it does nothing. Or maybe that could be
the default behavior. The major benefit being a
Matt Youell wrote:
> > Is there a standard? No. Does there need to be one? I don't see a need
> > for it.
>
> What's wrong with something simple, like saying all classes have an implicit
> new() method that is overloadable? Is this really *that* complicated? Maybe
> I'm not getting the Big Pic
> What's the problem again?
>
> I mean, really, any OO shop has it's local culture, of what the base
> classes
> are and so forth.
That pretty much sounds like the problem, in a nutshell.
And shop-level is a pretty narrow point of view. What about something that I
d/l from the net, where the cod
Matt Youell wrote:
>
> > > MI thing, but now it's sounding like a constructor bubbling scheme, like
>
>
> Ah, yes. I've had to deal with that problem several times in the past. The
> terminology was new to me, however.
>
> Has there been a proposed solution?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Matt
What's th
Matt Youell wrote:
> The terminology was new to me, however.
I made it up.
--
John Porter
> > MI thing, but now it's sounding like a constructor bubbling scheme, like
in
> > C++, etc.
>
> Right. Perl doesn't have it by default, and *can't* have it
> except under certain rather strict constraints, e.g. when all
> players are playing by the Class::Struct rules, or some other
> more elab
Matt Youell wrote:
> Forgive my woeful ignorance Could someone define "data aggregation by
> inheritance"? From John's original mention I thought this was some oblique
> MI thing, but now it's sounding like a constructor bubbling scheme, like in
> C++, etc.
Right. Perl doesn't have it by def
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:26:39AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Hmm... let me write it first would you? Shouldn't be *too* hard.
> > Suggestions for a real name for it?
>
> Class::Anonymous? Class::Anon?
>
> PS base has to take an array ref. Don't forget MI!
I
Matt Youell wrote:
>
> Forgive my woeful ignorance Could someone define "data aggregation by
> inheritance"? From John's original mention I thought this was some oblique
> MI thing, but now it's sounding like a constructor bubbling scheme, like in
> C++, etc.
I understood it to mean automati
Forgive my woeful ignorance Could someone define "data aggregation by
inheritance"? From John's original mention I thought this was some oblique
MI thing, but now it's sounding like a constructor bubbling scheme, like in
C++, etc.
Thanks!
matt youell
John Porter wrote:
>
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > > Give me data aggregation by inheritance
> > Oooh, now that would be useful.
>
> Of course it would. That's why nearly every OO language (beside Perl)
> has it.
package circular_list_node;
... # defines how the list_nodes do
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:26:39AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Hmm... let me write it first would you? Shouldn't be *too* hard.
> Suggestions for a real name for it?
Class::Anonymous? Class::Anon?
PS base has to take an array ref. Don't forget MI!
--
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > my $anon = My::Anon::ObjectFactory->new({base => 'Class',
> > method1 => sub { ... },
> >
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> > > > Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concep
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> > > Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> > > anonymous classes (it names them 'inner'
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Give me data aggregation by inheritance
> Oooh, now that would be useful.
Of course it would. That's why nearly every OO language (beside Perl)
has it.
> > and then I'll grant that inner classes are easy to tack on.
> You can always do this right now:
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
