> On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:53, Stevan Little wrote: > > With p5, you /can/ get to the underlying data structure. This is a > > break which will hamper the backwards compatibility effort I think. > > With Perl 5, you can *appear* to get to the underlying data structure. Yet > tie() is basically free on Ponie and there's a metaclass mediating access to > the underlying storage. I think that makes the problem solvable.
Excellent. > (Does using an alternate type of storage mean you need an alternate metaclass? > Perhaps, perhaps not -- but the practical effects of syntax have to come from > somewhere.) Actually I was thinking this might be the best approach. I have been dabbling more and more with CLOS lately and am not seeing where a full-fledge attribute meta-object is probably a really good idea (in the current model the meta-attribute is very very slim). > As long as you can use Perl 5 classes in Perl 6 without rewriting all of the > Perl 5 code, I'm happy. Yes, this is the ultimate goal. I never wanted to get rid of &bless, only to resolve what I saw as an inconsistency with the use of &bless and some of the other aspects of the Perl 6 design. Stevan
