Paul Hodges wrote:
> Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Incidently, I think I've caught on to _one_ of the concepts in the
> > upcoming object-orientation proposal: linguistically, there's a triad
> > of "basic verbs" - namely "be", "do", and "have". If I'm following
> > things properly, one could think of an object's properties as things
> > that it has, its methods as things that it does, and its roles as
> > things that it is.
>
> Beautiful. This has a lot of potential, although some of it is
> potential to twist young minds..... It makes me want to add commas
> where commas should not be.
>
> my Dog $Spot is Pet, will { Sit() }, has @.fleas;
>
> See what I mean? :op
Technically, it would be "will do { Sit() }" or "does { Sit() }" or even
"does sit()"; but yes, I can see what you mean.
> But seriously, how much of that actually is valid?I doubt @.fleas will
> fly (no pun intended, honest).
I don't see why not; must every member of an aobject be a scalar? Can't
any of them be lists or hashes?
=====
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
