Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question isn't whether they *do*--rather it's whether they
> *should*. The current implementation's not all that relevant except
> as a demonstration of one set of semantics. What I want to do is work
> out what the 'proper' semantics ultimately should be.
I think that the static "inheritance" inside classes/ is ok. We have to
rearrange classes hierarchy, though. The special MMD based Integer and
Float classes are no more special, array classes still need finishing.
A nice to have would be a more sophisticated MI scheme. It's ok inside
the PMC files, e.g. from orderedhash.pmc:
void mark () {
SUPER();
PerlHash.SUPER();
}
but the build dependencies are created manually.
leo
