Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> Yes! I mentioned the hypothetical
> use strict 'types';
> which would require all variables assigned to/from an object, and
> all variables upon which method calls are made, to be typed like
> this. Then the compiler can:
> (a) optimize
> (b) check at compile-time
Hate to add a "me too", but I think this is a great idea. Nat needs to
be able to torture himself in whatever sick C-type ways he desires. ;-)
;-)
Seriously, though, this adds lots of potential benefits.
> Polymorphic
> types also becomes a problem: how to say that it's okay for a variable
> to hold a Dog *or* a Cat, because we know that both of them have a
> "pet()" method?
Seems in order to satisfy this you'd have to have a common ancestor,
Pet, which Dog and Cat inherited:
my Pet $foofoo; # Can be Dog, Cat, or anything inherited
And if you didn't want inherited classes to count, you could specify
that as an attribute:
my Pet $foofoo : onlybase; # Must be a Pet, not Cat/Dog
Or ":only", ":nochildren", ":justme", or any other similar word...
-Nate
