Re: Anonymous classes (was Re: Anyone actually experienced with object inheritance?)

2001-07-04 Thread Piers Cawley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:26:39AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: > > Hmm... let me write it first would you? Shouldn't be *too* hard. > > Suggestions for a real name for it? > > Class::Anonymous? Class::Anon? > > PS base has to take an array ref. Don't forget MI! I

(proto)typing, return types, polymorphism, ... ?

2001-07-04 Thread Chris Hostetter
A few questions regarding typing. (first some assumptions/axioms) Axiom #1: perl6 will enable programs to be more explicit about the typing of variables -- even allowing them to specify dynamic-ish properties about the values in those variables. Damian's Attribute::Types has examples like this

Re: Generalizing value property setting to become postits

2001-07-04 Thread Me
> Me: [$foo is bar] can change the value of $foo. > Damian: Yes. For example: my $foo is persistent; Could you explain this further please? > Me: $foo : bar baz is roughly equivalent to baz(bar($foo)) > Damian: Err. No. That would be:

Re: Anonymous classes (was Re: Anyone actually experienced with object inheritance?)

2001-07-04 Thread John Porter
Matt Youell wrote: > Forgive my woeful ignorance Could someone define "data aggregation by > inheritance"? From John's original mention I thought this was some oblique > MI thing, but now it's sounding like a constructor bubbling scheme, like in > C++, etc. Right. Perl doesn't have it by def

Re: Generalizing value property setting to become postits

2001-07-04 Thread Jeremy Howard
> What I was suggesting was to consider broadening what the > $foo : bar style postfix sub syntax allows/assists bar to do, > so that bars can be used to set properties OR do other stuff. > What's the practical utility of this? This discussion has been pretty abstract so far... It's easy to see ho

Re: Anonymous classes (was Re: Anyone actually experienced with object inheritance?)

2001-07-04 Thread Matt Youell
> > MI thing, but now it's sounding like a constructor bubbling scheme, like in > > C++, etc. > > Right. Perl doesn't have it by default, and *can't* have it > except under certain rather strict constraints, e.g. when all > players are playing by the Class::Struct rules, or some other > more elab