On Oct 13, 2005, at 4:45 PM, TSa wrote:
No, not that class has no state, but that with the currently
specced classes we have inherited behaviors (class methods) but
they do not inherit the accompanying state (class attributes) as
well. I see this as potentially very problematic.
What do you mean with "not inheriting class state"? I would think that
beeing an instance of a class, an object should have access to the
shared
class data, but it is not part of the per object state. Or do you mean
that class data is not accessable to the instances at all? I would
hope
that this is 'hidden' in the scopes where the class's parts are
defined
but of course accessable lexically from class support code there.
I mean that classes do not inherit class state along subclass lines.
Take this code for instance:
class Foo {
has $.bar;
}
every instance of Foo I create has it's own copy of $.bar. Now I
subclass it:
class Bar is Foo {}
every instance of Bar has it's own copy of $.bar as well. Now look at
this from the class attribute perspective.
class Foo {
our $.baz; # class data here,.. not instance data
}
Foo has a single copy of $.baz in it's internal namespace. Now
subclass it:
class Bar is Foo {}
Bar does not have it own copy of $.baz, in fact Bar's ability to
access Foo::{$.baz} (or however it would be spelt) is not more
special than any other class in the system.
The point I am trying to make is that class data is unique to the
class itself, and subclasses of said class do not have any special
priviledges or access to that data (leaving auto-generated accessors
out of the picture for now).
This is different though from how class methods behave, which seems
to me to be problematic.
Stevan
