# from Yuval Kogman
# on Monday 02 April 2007 03:57 pm:
>Then just proxy everything:
>For the proper distinction between a setter and a method that
>accepts arguments (and should still be shadowed) I guess you need
>some meta programming, but the value is dubious IMHO.
My first thought was actual
On 3 Apr 2007, at 08:16, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Yuval Kogman
# on Monday 02 April 2007 03:57 pm:
Then just proxy everything:
For the proper distinction between a setter and a method that
accepts arguments (and should still be shadowed) I guess you need
some meta programming, but the value
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-03 13:10]:
> Having slept on it I think the name for what I'm trying to do
> might reasonably be 'object currying'.
That’s very close to what I first thought when I started to read
the thread. Bummer you beat me to it. :-)
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagal
* Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-03 01:00]:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 23:08:40 +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> > So if the object was completely immutable, normal prototyping
> > would be semantically identical to what I'm describing. But
> > if I still want to be able to set properties a
On 3 Apr 2007, at 15:55, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
You don’t need any fancy new OO paradigm to do this or even any
introspection, just a trivial bit of metaprogramming (AUTOLOAD).
Yes, that's pretty much what I've got so far except that variant()
constructs and returns an instance of a general purp
