Andy Wardley wrote:
>
> Dan Sugalski wrote much sense, including these gems:
[snip]
> > Code must be able to fetch a handle on a particular method for later
> > calling
>
> By this I presume you mean that the handle would be frozen to the
> method as it was when then handle was fetched? If you later re-define
> the method, the handle would remain pointing at the original method,
> not the new one.
>
> Or not?
Redefining methods is almost (but not quite) as evil as altering
inheritance trees (at least wrt to it's effect on caching methods).
Consider the following perl5 code:
{ package MyClass; sub SomeMethod { 12 } }
my $methodref = MyClass->can("SomeMethod");
*MyClass::SomeMethod = sub { return 42 };
print MyClass->SomeMethod(), "\n";
print MyClass->$methodref(), "\n";
I suppose if perl6's equivilant of 'can' returns a string, such as
"MyClass::SomeMethod", then it might work as you want it to... but that
would produce one extra level of indirection; would it be worth it?
--
$;=qq qJ,krleahciPhueerarsintoitq;sub __{0 &&
my$__;s ee substr$;,$,&&++$__%$,--,1,qq;;;ee;
$__>2&&&__}$,=22+$;=~y yiy y;__ while$;;print
