Larry,
On Oct 14, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Generics are somewhat orthogonal to the mutable/immutable distinction,
except that they're a better fit for roles because someone has to
choose when to instantiate them, and they're easier to understand
with early binding rather than late bin
On 10/14/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : I need to stress that I'm not suggesting that the keyword "role"
> : be removed. It won't be the first time we have keywords that mean the
> : same thing, just with a little sugar added. It definitely improves
> : maintainability to have se
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:08:45AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: What this means is that classes and roles both quack, swim, and
: lay eggs. They're both just ducks. Given that, there's no need for two
: separate concepts in the implementation. It just makes for a more
: complex implementation.
I
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:08:45 -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> couldn't fix it in my head why there were two separate concepts.
The difference between a class and a role is in the eyes of their
consumer - the way in which a class gets new behavior (inheritence,
mixin, or role composition style) is fu
In the discussions I've had with Steve, one thing that always
nagged me - what's the difference between a "class" and a "role"? I
couldn't fix it in my head why there were two separate concepts.
Steve, yesterday, mentioned to me that in the metamodel that he's got
so far, Class does Role. This