Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > But I agree that anything beyond that is simply horrible. > > > You'll only drive more people *away* from OO, because it > > > generates so horribly inefficient code. If you want a > > > constructor called, than FGS *call* a constructor. Maybe you > > > can reduce the syntax necessary to do that, but please don't > > > do it behind our backs. > > > > Well then, that's one nay vote. :) > > Make that two. Three. But I think Michael already knew about mine and forgot to count it. -- Piers
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor i... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Michael Fowler