>>>>> "Larry" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Larry> I think our terminology is getting sloppy here. What do you mean by Larry> "inherit from that method"? If the derived method overrides the base Larry> method, it will manage its own resources, and doesn't need the base Larry> method's LAST. If the derived method calls the base method, the LAST Larry> of the base method will naturally come along for the ride. If there is Larry> no derived method, the base method also calls its own LAST as a matter Larry> of course. I don't see any problem here. That's why I'm still puzzled about what it means to inherit PRE/POST as well. A block of code doesn't have a superclass. What exactly are you "inheriting from"? If you call "super" from a method, surely the super will have its own PRE/POST, and then there's no need to inherit it. If you don't call "super", how do you know the PRE/POST of a similar subroutine in a superclass that you're completely overriding should even apply? So, does it make any sense at all to talk about "inheriting" PRE/POST as a separate act, other than the natural block start/end from calling "super" at the right time? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
