On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:04:23PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Are they really necessary? You can get the same effect so many other
> > ways in Perl already,
>
> That is a very unhelpful attitude.
We've already got everything and the kitchen sink proposed for Perl 6.
Remember, somebody's got to write all this.
> Give me data aggregation by inheritance
Oooh, now that would be useful.
> namespace scoping
Err... something like lexical namespaces? "my package Foo"?
package Foo;
{
my package Bar;
sub baz { 42 }
}
print Bar->baz; # *bzzzzt* Bar only exists in its scope.
Interesting, but do we need them in 6.0?
> interfaces
Pretty much covered by our discussions of method signatures and typing
earlier, no? Yes, we need them.
> and then I'll grant that inner classes are easy to tack on.
You can always do this right now:
package Whatever;
sub foo {
my $self = shift;
my $obj = Class::Object->new;
$obj->sub 'bar', sub {
blah blah blah
};
$obj->sub 'yarrow', sub {
more blah
};
...now $obj acts like an instance of...
...an anonynous inner class...
}
When $obj goes away, all trace of its class goes away (thanks to a
helpful DESTROY method). Same effect as an anonymous inner class in
Java. One instance, methods defined on the spot, can't access it from
outside foo(). The syntax could use a little work...
And, of course, you can get the same effect if you don't sweat the
protections by just defining one package inside another.
Uh oh. I smell another BDSM OO vs Happy-Go-Lucky OO argument brewing...
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
WOOHOO! I'm going to Disneyland!
http://www.goats.com/archive/980805.html
