Matt Youell wrote:
> > Is there a standard? No. Does there need to be one? I don't see a need
> > for it.
>
> What's wrong with something simple, like saying all classes have an implicit
> new() method that is overloadable? Is this really *that* complicated? Maybe
> I'm not getting the Big Picture.
The problem is, where does this rule belong? Right now, "the constructor
is called C<new>" is a cultural standard so strong that at least one
highlighting
code editor highlights it in Perl mode. Is this enforced? No. Why?
What if you want multiple constructors with redundant code, et cetera --
there is flexibility.
Selecting a group of standard class methods and insisting that a CPAN
upload be compliant with the standard, more restrictive than What The
Language Lets You Get Awat With -- that makes sense to me.
Perhaps the maintainers of Class::* could converge on a standard API,
including
a standard name for what the class mechanism in use in a particular
instance is.
But would the game be worth the candle?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187
