Juerd writes:
> Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-23 13:33 (-0400):
> > I should then be able to call class methods of Dog via $spot without further
> > initialization:
> > print defined($spot); # FALSE
> > $rover = $spot.new;
> > @breeds = $spot.list_breeds;
>
> But shouldn't you then just use "my Class $spot = Dog" then? Or maybe
> just "my $spot := Dog"?
Well, maybe, but what if you're being passed it in via a sub? And
what if you don't know the type. Eg.
sub foo ($x is copy) {
$x //= $x.new;
}
That would clearly die if you said:
foo(undef);
But what if that undef was cascaded from somewhere else? It allows you
to have an *undefined* object floating around that knows what it
*should* be.
To be clear, I don't know exactly what benefit that has just yet, but it
seems like one of those things that has potential.
On the other hand, A12 said that $x.new when $x is undef should in turn
be undef. That also seems like something potentially useful.
> > This is, as pointed out, just sugar for Dog::new and Dog::list_breeds, but
> > it brings up the spectre of undef invocants:
>
> :: or .? I'm confused.
Dog::new is the name of the method; Dog.new is how you call it. So the
answer is yes.
> > $c->foo->bar->baz; # If foo or bar fails, what happens?
>
> -> or .? Even more confused now.
You'll have to give Austin some rope in the syntax area. His brain
occasionally stops working (hmm, I know that feeling %-), but you can
usually figure out what he means. :-p
Luke
