At 04:01 PM 4/10/2002 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > > > $.foo > > > > It's already defined as an instance variable. > >I don't think I like that. Instance variables are far more common that >class variables, so why not just $foo, and you could use a compile-time >property for class variables. Like C<is private> as discussed. That or >C<is static>. I think the latter makes more sense. > >Or is there some reason this wouldn't work?
I totally agree here. The common case is going to make code look ugly with $.foo everywhere. Please don't let this come into being. :( I think it is arguable that a closure is a class for a subroutine object, and in subs we will still use my $foo for lexicals. However we must remember in class scope to use $.foo for the default, instance variable, and a normal $foo for the less typical static or class variables. Yucky. Reserve the ugly syntax for the less common case. Pleeeease. -Melvin
