On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 03:17:36PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >>>>> "GB" == Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GB> On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 10:14:36AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >> As much as I'm not for it, would
> >>
> >> having
> >>
> >> sub foo :method {} # In objects vtbl
> >> and
> >> sub foo {} # only if procedural call
> >>
> >> being a valid construct and having perl dispatch appropriately, be
> >> viable?
>
> GB> What does it mean ? Can the first only ever be called as a methoed and the
> GB> second as a procedure ? Will we have to define both foo's ?
>
> That was my suggestion. And the _author_ if supplying a dual mode
> module would define both. Either one in terms of the other in order to
> save coding. Or if there were a good reason, two seperate versions.
>
> As I said I'm not enamoured of this suggestion. But it's a thought.
That needs to be made on -language
> Do you think perl can dynamically create one of the styles from the
> other?
There has been some suggestion of perl not putting the object in the argument
list when calling a method, but instead having a special var.
If that happens we should be able to test the special var for defined-ness
to determine how we were called.
Just a thought.
Graham.
