Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers anddestructors

[Nathan Wiger]

> > So, you don't define a SETUP. BUT, the author of a module you're
> > inheriting from defined a SETUP, not to your knowledge?
> 
> No worse that the current situation in which you have no clue what the
> guy you're inheriting from expects.  Better to have SETUPs called
> below you than to not even know that there's some terribly important init
> stuff that needs to be done by a parent class and that you neglect to
> manually invoke.

True, I think in most cases. But to override it I don't want to have to
do this:

> Determined individuals can always stop it from
> happening by nefariously blanking out sub ParentClass::SETUP {}

Anyways, sounds like we agree. Mentally, I've made this little map:

    bless  similar to  sysopen
    setup  similar to  open

We tell people "use setup, not bless" in Perl 6. They do, they get all
the neat new higher-level features. But they don't have to go through
hoops to still get at the bare guts if they want to. Plus, we have the
2-in-1 benefit of making object setup more intuitive than "blessing".

And of course there may well be better names than 'setup', I just chose
that because Damian chose SETUP in his RFC...

-Nate