On 1/18/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2006 14:13, Stevan Little wrote:
>
> > Do we really still need to retain the old Perl 5 version of &bless?
> > What purpose does it serve that p6opaque does not do in a better/
> > faster/cleaner way?
>
> Interoperability with Perl 5 code.
Well, for one thing, you can't write OO code in P5. You can write code
that behaves like you're in OO-land and that talks with an OO accent
(so long as you don't look behind the curtain), but it's not OO.
Given that, I'm not sure that conceptual interoperability with P5 code
should be a design goal, particularly in the OO-space. Allowing
methods to be called on references that have been associated with a
given package is an easy addition to the current MOP. Just add
.blessed_into and have a step right before AUTOLOAD (or method_missing
or whatever) to check .blessed_into and try that package, if one is
set.
Also, given that the semantics of a number of items is changing (
"".split(':') anyone?), how closely will P6 really mirror P5 behavior
given identical code?
Rob
