Would it make sense for the syntax to be more like
my $obj3 = $obj.new;
Of course, that would kill my ".= new" idea for instantiation (since it would
call an instance-based new instead of class-based), but I'm getting less fond
of that syntax anyway (though I think .= should definitely be supported in the
language, and $a .= foo; should DTRT, ie, $a = $a.foo).
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 07:54 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > Heh, indeed. :) But seriously, you could do worse. JavaScript
> > receives
> > a lot of (IMHO) undeserved criticism. The name is a blatant marketing
>
> No, I've had to use it off-and-on for the past year... it deserves it.
> :-) But enough of that.
>
> I agree, prototype based inheritance is really useful sometimes.
> (Those of you not subjected to JS may be more familiar with
> Class::Classless, a quite nice perl5 implementation.)
>
> I'd definitely like to see builtin support for instance based
> inheritance. I've found many, many uses for Class::Classless, and have
> made halfbreed variations of it for several special-case situations.
> IMO the best situation would be to have both worlds collide; not
> strictly class-based, not strictly proto-based, but a mix-and-match of
> each in accordance to the particular problem you're trying to solve.
>
> An interesting way to do this could simply be to allow object
> instances, as well as normal classes, in the inheritance tree; you
> could then mix a prototype-based object with, for example, several
> class-based mixin behaviors, etc.
>
> Something like:
>
> my $obj = Something.new; # (1) obj based on a class
>
> class MyClass is $obj {...} # (2) a class based on an obj!
>
> my $obj2 = MyClass.new; # (3) obj based on a class based on
> an obj
>
> my $obj3 isa $obj; # (4) an obj based on another obj
>
> my $obj4 isa $obj isa MyClass; # (5) obj + mixin (but what syntax???)
>
>
> Note that (2) would have interesting implications if you changed $obj
> runtime, but would be very uncommon. (4,5) could be quite common, tho.
> And (4,5) need to use a word other than 'is', which means that
> currently none of these syntaxes look anything alike. :-P
>
> Mixing OO frameworks is quite useful in some real-world situations.
> Sometimes it's more efficient to change your OO implementation than to
> try to translate your problem to fit the one you're given.
>
> MikeL
>
--
Adam Lopresto ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
All I want is a warm bed, a kind word, and unlimited power.
