At 05:01 PM 1/23/2002 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: >On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 02:45:21PM -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote: > > Final seems to be a way of sealing off a class or method from future > > inheritance. Generally, the arguments I've seen on OO lists seem to > > indicate that regardless of how omniscient the original designer is, > > someone will get an idea for a useful subclass for the class or method, > > but run into the problem of not being able to extend it because of the > > superclass implementor's choice to make it final. Hence, final seems to > > be a concept that is rather un-Perl-ish. > >Hmm. It would be un-Perl-ish to not provide a mechanism for the >fascist to implement final if they wanted it. Which leads me to >wonder if a way unfolds from the syntax already revealed or if we have >to wait for the OOP-Apocalypse to see how to put our PRE conditions on >the "isa" mechanism.
I agree totally. Ive never bought into arguments about why "available, non-default" behavior is so oppressive. Else "use strict" would have to go. :) Glenn's point is correct about these mechanisms - when you don't have access to source code, it can be frustrating, but I think its the availability of source + the design decision of the author, not the keyword that is the problem. -Melvin
