Michael G Schwern wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 03:56:59PM -0800, John Rudd wrote: > > So, I'm reading various things about lots of changes for perl6, and some > > arcane things going away, and stuff like that.. and I suddenly wondered > > if one of my favorite features of Perl Objects (the one that keeps me > > from migrating to tcl or python, cuz I can never find clear information > > about whether such an analog exists in those languages) is going away: > > AUTOLOAD. > > Going away? No way, it's SPREADING! We might wind up with AUTOGLOB, too. > > http://dev.perl.org/rfc/324.pod >
Oh, now, quit that ... you're making me drool all over my keyboard! (though, I sorta kinda do prefer the AUTOHASH, AUTOARRAY, AUTOSCALAR ... approach mentioned there to one unified AUTOGLOB ... but it's really just a matter of druthers and style, isn't it?) So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might be coming forth? (I know, I know, here I am, a smalltalker, asking for operator overloading ... but, what are the smalltalkers gonna do, take away my membership card?) It would, on some levels, seem to be required that you'll have the ability to have operator methods for objects if you go down the "all things returned are objects" path, in order to support mathematical objects like numerical scalars. And, that sort of implies some amount of ability to overload them. Though, not necessarily, as smalltalk would imply the same thing and none of the versions I've used allow it. (though, there were some older versions ... ) But, still ... I'd kinda like to see it. -- John "kzin" Rudd http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last. (Physics of Quarks) -----===== Kein Mitleid Fu:r MicroSoft (www.kmfms.com) ======-----
