Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:21:35 -0500
>> From: John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>>
>> On 12/11/02 6:16 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> > There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
>> > Just:
>> >
>> > $obj1.id == $obj2.id
>> >
>> > That's what the universal C<id> method is *for*.
>>
>> I must have missed this (or forgotten it?) Any chance of it becoming .ID or
>> .oid or even ._id? I'm kind of attached to using an "id" method on objects
>> that represent things in a database... :-/
>
> Well I use .str all the time, an .eq is one of my favorites! Don't
> take those, put a prefix on them!
>
> Theoretically, there are sufficiently few Object methods to warrant
> normal names.
Right now there are 'sufficiently few' Object methods, but I'm betting
that before the game is over there's going to a be a whole pile
more, just take a look at any Smalltalk image if you don't believe
me. But that's no reason for upcasing said methodnames. Anyway, you
haven't lived 'til you've added a suite of methods to
UNIVERSAL/Object; it's how we make Pixie work for instance.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
