I apologize. I royally screwed up my original post.
I had meant to ask two minor specific yes/no answer
type questions about properties and stricture, that
were mutually unrelated. Instead I asked one major
open ended one.
In the hope that I haven't completely blown any
chance of getting answers to what I meant to ask,
here's another shot:
Question 1:
Afaict, even with use strict at its most strict, perl 6
can't (in practice) complain, at compile time, if
$foo.Foun
refers to an undeclared Foun.
Right?
------------------
Question 2:
Should there be a strict mode that warns if a
method name matches a built in property name?
------------------
Q1 followed from me thinking about my/our concepts
as they might apply to properties. The more I thought
about it, the more I gravitated toward the proposed
system (lowercase for builtins, Mixedcase for user
defined, only declare properties as part of my/our,
etc), but I wanted to confirm that one ends up with
this one unavoidable consequence -- that, ignoring
unreasonable changes to perl, accidental $foo.Foun,
even with strong stricture, will not be detectable.
Q2 followed from me thinking about the way properties
and object method names will share namespace.
I wholeheartedly support the introduction of this sort of
idiosyncratic, oddly, er, shaped, polymorphism. Larry's
'natural language' basis for perl is absolutely fundamental
and brilliant, and I'm not questioning it whatsoever. But,
within this framework, whatever stricture is reasonably
available is nice, and I thought the specific mode I
suggested made sense, assuming I understand the
current proposal for properties.
