At 8:16 PM +0530 1/23/03, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> Ruby needs to call the missing_method method (if I remember correctly).
So if "foo" doesn't exist, it would be good to be able to override
callmethods behavior and make it call missing_method.
like I said , the compiler designer can put that explicitly in the
generated code ... You don't actually need instructions to do that.
Also the explicit generation might prove to be better to handle all
the quirks future languages might encounter....
Or hiding it in the objects themselves, so we can make sure the
expense of generality is only in place for those objects or classes
that need it, rather than for everyone.
My interest here is to obtain a clear and fast way to call stuff for
static compiled languages. :)
Fair enough, though that would argue for embedding the functionality
in the objects and not the generated code, as AUTOLOAD searching
should be done for a method call on a perl object regardless of
whether the language making the method call supports it. If your C#
code calls a method on a perl object it gets, that method resolution
should be done with perl semantics, not C# semantics.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
