Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor implicitly

[Nathan Wiger]

Piers Cawley wrote:
> 
> Well, you keep advancing this idea which has, as far as I can tell, no
> upside apart from the reduction in keystrokes required to instantiate
> an object. And in doing that you remove useful functionality from a
> bunch of other cases.
> 
> No wonder we're down on the idea.

As chair of this list, I just want to step in and say: Everyone's
entitled to their idea. I'm sure Michael is smart enough to hear others'
concerns and note them in the RFC. In fact, maybe he'll end up modifying
it in a way so that the next version is more flexibile; perhaps adding
an ":implicit" sub attribute or something. Or, Michael might decide to
withdraw the RFC.

Regardless, no reason to beat him up too bad. I think he gets the point
that many see problems with the RFC as presented.

-Nate