On 2/14/06, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that the metaclass (stored in the pseudo-lexical $::CLASS)
> should create a number of anonymous roles on the fly:
>
> role {
> multi method a (::CLASS $self) { ... }
> multi method a (::CLASS $self, Scalar $value) { ... }
> }
>
> role {
> multi method a (::CLASS $self) { ... }
> multi method a (::CLASS $self, Array @value) { ... }
> }
>
> These roles would then be added to the metaclass using the normal
> rules of role composition. (NOTE: I assume that ::CLASS is unbound
> until the role is composed into a class, I think A12 might have stated
> this detail)
>
> Now obviously we have a conflict in our multi-methods. S12 only states
> that multi methods will be compared by their long names (name +
> signature) to resolve ambiguity, it does not state what happens when
> those long names conflict. I propose that they work just as normal
> method conflicts do, which is that both methods are excluded and the
> consuming class is then required to implement that method.
Is it just the first multimethod a(::CLASS $self) from each role being
excluded or are all the multimethod a(...)'s being excluded?
Rob
