On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 08:31:17AM +0100, Hildo Biersma wrote:
> My previous concerns have not been adressed:
> - There may not be a default constructor
If there is no implicit constructor method defined by the class, and the my
Dog $spot syntax is used, a fatal exception is raised. The RFC mentions
this. This exact thing is also currently being discussed.
> - This makes creations of Singleton classes impossible
In what way? The implicit constructor method can return anything it likes,
just as current constructors can.
> - There is a good reason to created typed, but undef, references
> and fill them in later.
What is this reason? Can you give some examples? Could such a thing fit
cleanly and unambiguously in with the rest of this idea? If so, do you have
an idea how?
> > For example, the syntax:
> >
> > my Dog $spot = "Spot";
> >
> > would be transformed to, or be the equivalent of:
> >
> > $spot = Dog->$METHOD("Spot");
>
> Based on my C++ experience, this should only be allowed if the
> constructor has been marked as 'implicit construction safe'.
It is assumed that the method is "implicit construction safe", if by that
you mean suitable to be called implicitly to construct an object. Since the
methods are uniquely named, or specified by the author, I don't think this
is assuming too much.
I use $METHOD throughout the RFC as a conceptual variable for whatever
method name we decide on.
Michael
--
Administrator www.shoebox.net
Programmer, System Administrator www.gallanttech.com
--
