On Aug 13, 2:08pm, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> I absolutely hate . as well. I always have, even in other languages. The
> -> notation is much clearer that "hey, we're doing something with a
> member attribute".
Yep, whatever. The syntax shouldn't really be an issue here. It was
proposed to be someth
> I'm incredibly leery of
> putting two distinct OO mechanisms into Perl. That *won't* satisfy the
> OO purists or those who need guaranteed security.
>
> And I'm *really* against . as an attribute access mechanism :-)
This is my stance as well.
One thing to remember is that we're ripping the
> No, I don't want to tighten up anything about Perl's existing package
> and blessed reference system. It's fine the way it is. I *ALSO*
> want a more formally defined OO system for times when I'm feeling more
> structured, or when the scale or scope of the project I'm working on
> Since you didn't mention it in your references, you may want to
> check out RFC 92, Extensible Meta-Object Protocol -- Method Search
> at http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/92.pod
I saw it after I posted the RFC. Yes, this is exactly the kind
of support that we need in the core to allow us to do th
I'm still saving the proposal for further digestion, but wanted
to get this out quickly:
> "Perl6" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perl6> The existing C keyword can be used to create new object instances
Perl6> of a given class.
There is no existing "new" keyword in Perl.
Andy Wardley wrote:
>
> A key feature of this proposal is that object/class variable and
> methods are indistinguishable to the user. The dot operator does
> the right thing to call a method (if defined), or instead access a
> variable, or follow a delegation reference, etc. i.e.
>
> $foo.bar
Andy ~
Since you didn't mention it in your references, you may want to
check out RFC 92, Extensible Meta-Object Protocol -- Method Search
at http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/92.pod
RFC 92 considers an existing Perl 5 module we have that allows
us to write code like the following, and it considers ho
> Couldn't:
>my $u = User.new('abw', 'Andy Wardley', '[EMAIL PROTECTED]');
> just be
>my $u = User->new('abw', 'Andy Wardley', '[EMAIL PROTECTED]');
>
> And:
>$foo.bar.baz = 10;
> Just be:
>$foo::bar::baz = 10;
Yes, but the semantics change. A key feature of this proposal is tha
Andy-
Wow, this is a huge RFC. I read it, but could you please explain briefly
how this is different from a special type of package syntax?
It seems to me the . Java notation is the biggest salient feature of the
RFC. Looks like the rest is just a modification/reinvention of Perl's
current packa
