On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:41:42PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> But would the game be worth the candle?
IMHO not really. Of all the potential quirks Perl's OO has, this is
one of the least quirky and least violated.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwer
>What if you want multiple constructors with redundant code, et cetera --
>there is flexibility.
You could get that same flexibility from a mandated new(). If you don't want
to support new, overload it so that it does nothing. Or maybe that could be
the default behavior. The major benefit being a
Matt Youell wrote:
> > Is there a standard? No. Does there need to be one? I don't see a need
> > for it.
>
> What's wrong with something simple, like saying all classes have an implicit
> new() method that is overloadable? Is this really *that* complicated? Maybe
> I'm not getting the Big Pic
