Trey Harris wrote: > An alias? Isn't > > class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh; > > a new class declaration, declaring 'Date' as a subclass of > Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh?
Yes. It's not an alias. > it will have a similar effect to aliasing Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh > under the name 'Date', simply because the subclass hasn't redefined any > behavior of the parent. Yes. > But it *is* a separate class Yes. > unless Damian was saying that there would be some special casing when a class > declaration contains no body. No, I never said (nor intended to imply) that. Note that I carefully avoided the word "alias" in my description of this technique. ;-) > Furthermore, we haven't seen any final word about export behavior, but the > default is something along the lines of 'public', correct? So if you have > a module or class file containing the above declaration, the class 'Date' > should be exported to users of the module, unless you write it > > my class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh; > > right? Classes aren't actually exported. But yes, the classname Date would be universally visible, unless you made it lexical (as in your last example above). Damian
