On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > 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. > > Three. I was hoping to be strike three! Four. David
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor i... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor i... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... David E. Wheeler