Re: Objects, finally (try 1)

[Dan Sugalski]

At 1:46 PM -0500 1/22/03, Christopher Armstrong wrote:

On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:57:28AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:

 At 9:37 PM -0500 1/14/03, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
 >But who knows, maybe it could be made modular enough (i.e., more
 >interface-oriented?) to allow the best of both worlds -- I'm far too
 >novice wrt Parrot to figure out what it'd look like, unfortunately.

 It'll actually look like what we have now. If you can come up with
 something more abstract than:

   callmethod P1, "foo"

 that delegates the calling of the foo method to the method dispatch
 vtable entry for the object in P1, well... gimme, I want it. :)

Just curious. Exactly how overridable is that `callmethod'?

Completely. It ultimately delegates finding the method to the PMC via its vtable, so you can then do whatever you want. We're going to provide some convenience functions and predefined functionality so everyone doesn't have to reimplement the same stuff over and over.

Delegating to the PMC also means that perl objects or ruby objects will behave the way they should regardless of what language's code is using them. I'm not really expecting too much in the way of different behaviour between the languages, but the differences that are there should be respected.
--
Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk