Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializersanddestructors

[Damian Conway]

   > Given that is happens when bless is called and that all other builtin
   > methods are anmed after what is being called, not what it is being used
   > for, then I would say that it should be called BLESS for consistancy reason.
   > 
   > this may seem confusing because you are thinking of one particular use
   > that you have in mind for this, but in a generic sense it is a method
   > that is called when bless is called.

To me this points out the flaw in the entire naming scheme, not in my 
dissent :-)

I would much prefer to see:

        PRINT   become  PRINTING    or  ONPRINT
        PRINTF  become  PRINTFING   or  ONPRINTF
        DESTROY become  DESTROYING  or  ONDESTROY
        BLESS   be      BLESSING    or  ONBLESS

I realize this won't happen, but one can dream.

As it is, I intend to propose BUILD and REBUILD as the initializer
names, and mention BLESS/REBLESS as popular alternatives.

Ah, well, if worst comes to worst I can always (under RFC 128) write:

        sub on (""subname, &subbody) {
                *{caller()."::$name"} = $subbody
        };


        on BLESS {
                ...
        }

        on PRINT {
                ...
        }

        on DESTROY {
                ...
        }


:-)


Damian