On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:57:52PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Hodges, Paul writes:
> > I'd *like* to be able to predeclare a trait or property to be distributed
> > across any values placed in this array, but only this array. For example, it
> > would be nice if I could have the default aspects of false and foo be
> > applied to any Baz that gets stuck into @bar, but obviously this isn't the
> > syntax to do it. I could make Baz's new() do it, but I don't want *ALL* Baz
> > objects to be false and foo...just the ones in @bar. So, what I need is
> > something more like
> >
> > my @bar of Baz;
> > @bar.STORE.wrap { my $r = call; return $r >>but=<< (false,foo); }
>
> Something likely more like:
>
> my role property_wrap[Property [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> method STORE($newval) { SUPER::STORE($newval but [EMAIL PROTECTED]) }
> }
> @bar but= property_wrap[false, foo];
>
> With emphasis on "something". (Extrapolating wildly the little bit I
> know about roles and making up some semantics, such as C<but [EMAIL PROTECTED]>).
What's the difference between what you have above and this:
my property property_wrap (Property [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
method STORE($newval) { SUPER::STORE($newval but [EMAIL PROTECTED]) }
}
@bar but= property_wrap(false, foo);
? The examples I remember from the As and Es all have round brackets
around trait parameters (Hmm. And I can only remember is-trait examples
too). Granted, the universe could have shifted under my feet without my
knowledge.
I discovered after reading this email that I've been assuming that
square-bracket parameterization happened at compile-time while
round-bracket parameterization was, of course, run-time. I don't know
if that's even partially true though. If that isn't the distinction,
then what is? Why the two bracket styles?
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
