On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 03:00:57PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote: : Can role definitions be nested? That is: : : role A { : role subRole1 {...}; : role subRole2 {...}; : ... : }; : : As I see it, this ought to be equivelent to : : role A::subRole1 {...}; : role A::subRole2 {...}; : role A { : does A::subRole1; does A::subRole2; : ... : }; : : The advantage of doing things this way is that you'd be able cluster : related attributes and methods together within a role (or within a class, : for that matter) - clusters which make sense within the main role, but : probably don't have enough importance to be created as "standalone" roles.
I don't think a nested role would automatically "do" itself, but you could probably say: role A { does role subRole1 {...}; does role subRole2 {...}; ... }; At which point we all gang up on you and beat you to a pulp for being overly analytical. :-) Larry