Dan Sugalski wrote:Benjamin Goldberg wrote:Graham Barr wrote:Dan Sugalski wrote:If A isa B, we certainly wouldn't want to call A's AUTOLOAD on a method before we looked to see if B had a concrete instance of that method.
Right. The best you could probably do is note where you found the first AUTOLOAD so that when you do reach the end of the ISA search you don't need to do the whole search again.
Unless we changed the language in such a way that we could *tell* whether or not we should try calling A's AUTOLOAD.
Given that we have to run perl 5 code with the same expressed semantics as perl 5, and also are going to run python and ruby code properly, this isn't a tenable option.
We're the implementors. While we can complain about the semantics we have to express, we don't get to not express them.
Nothing says that we can't have a different semantic for each language we're running.
Well, almost nothing. Nothing much besides me, at least.
This isn't the place to ponder alternate semantics for existing or proposed languages. That's what the language lists are for. If you want perl 6 to behave in some particular way, go to perl6-language or petition Larry. (I'd not suggest bringing it up on Python-dev, but if you want to brave it, well, good luck)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
