Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:44:34PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 12:50:50PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
>> : It seems to me there's an argument both ways --
>> :
>> : 1. Code written in the absence of a role won't anticipate the role and
>> : therefore won't take (unknowable) steps to disambiguate method calls. Ergo
>> : method overloads are bad.
>> :
>> : 2. Roles may be written to deliberately supercede the methods of their
>> : victims. Method overloads are vital.
>>
>> I think the default has to be 1, with an explicit way to get 2, preferably
>> with the agreement of the class in question, though that's not absolutely
>> necessary if you believe in AOP.
>
> So, if we follow the rules in the Traits paper, a role may have no
> semantic effect if the object's class already provides the necessary
> methods. To *guarantee* that a role will modify an object's behavior,
> we need some sytactic clue. Perhaps "shall"?
>
> my Person $pete shall Work;
But presumably
my Person $self will Work;
Using a pair of words that change their meaning depending on the
subject of the verb seems to be a courageous choice of language and
rather too contextual even for Perl.
--
Beware the Perl 6 early morning joggers -- Allison Randal
