> > But I agree that anything beyond that is simply horrible. You'll only > > drive more people *away* from OO, because it generates so horribly > > inefficient code. If you want a constructor called, than FGS *call* a > > constructor. Maybe you can reduce the syntax necessary to do that, but > > please don't do it behind our backs. > > Well then, that's one nay vote. :) Make that two. Damian
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor i... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot s... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot s... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Piers Cawley