I've looked before for discussion of the rationale behind
introducing attr/has and failed to find it. I noticed you
mention Zurich, so perhaps this decision followed from
discussion in living color (as against b+w).
Anyhow, what was deemed wrong with using my/our?
And...
> class Zap {
> my %.zap_cache; # a private classwide attribute
> our $.zap_count = 0; # a public classwide attribute
>
> has $.foo;
> has $.bar;
> }
>
> It may be that $.zap_count is public not so much because of the class
definition
> where it would default to private, but because $.zap_count's real
global name is
> $Zap::.zap_count. To get a public accessor method you might still
need to declare
> it public. And you could get a public accessor method to the "my"
variable as well
> the same way.
So:
class Zap {
my %zap_cache; # var, lexical
my %.zap_cache; # class attr, lexical
my %.zap_cache is public; # class attr, lexical/public
our $zap_count = 0; # var, lexical/global
our $.zap_count = 0; # class attr, lexical/global
our $.zap_count = 0 is public; # class attr, lexical/public/global
has $.foo; # instance attr, lexical
has $.bar is public; # instance attr, lexical/public
}
Yes?
What about something like:
my $.foo; # private instance attr
our $.foo; # public instance attr
my $foo; # as p5
our $foo; # as p5
MY $.foo; # private class attr
OUR $.foo; # public class attr
MY $foo; # invalid?
OUR $foo; # invalid?
method bar; # public instance method
my method bar; # private instance method
our method bar; # public instance method
MY method bar; # private class method
OUR method bar; # public class method
--
ralph
