At 09:51 AM 6/28/2001 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: David L. Nicol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > "Mark J. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > > But you're opening a big can of worms if you make such a
> > > change. The biggest impact would be in the way methods are defined.
> > > Instead of just being members of a package, they would have to be
> > > associated with particular objects (classes or instances). A method
> > > may still be associated with a class by being defined in its
> > > package, but what about an instance? Do we give each
> > > instance a package?
> >
> > Rather, How Do We Do This With Vtables?
>
>Aren't lexical subroutines on the table for Perl 6? Wouldn't they be well
>suited for the task? And how do lexical subroutines hook in with vtables?
Vtables honestly have nothing to do with this. They're much lower level.
> > I've been saying all along that I think class method names should get
> > a number the first time they appear, which is the offset into the
> > vtable (array of coderefs) for that name. That would turn
> > the multiple hash lookup of current perl method binding into a single
> > array lookup.
>
>I'm still wishing people would consider having a separate namespace for
>versions of classes. So that depending on module dependencies I could
>simultaneously use modules with conflicting dependencies that require both
>SOAP::Lite v0.50 and SOAP::Lite v1.X.
Internally perl 6 will do this. Whether (or how) it's visible to the perl
programmer's Larry's call.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
