On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 11:49, Larry Wall wrote: > What I'm currently thinking about is a "does" predicate that tells you > if an object/class does a particular role completely. If you pull > part of a role into a class, it returns false, because it doesn't do > the complete role. However, if you use "like" instead, it returns a > number between 0 and 1 telling you what fraction of the role's methods > it uses. So you can ask if your object is more like a Dog or a Tree.
> Unless someone comes up with a better idea, of course. Obviously .does() > is redundant with .like() == 1. But it seems like a useful redundancy. Is it more useful to find the Dog-like-ness of a class or the notion that SomeClass.bark() is semantically Dog-like, not Tree-like? I expect to care more that the object does something Dog-like with the methods I'm about to call on it than how Dog-like it is in general. Maybe that's slicing does() way too thin, but like() seems to care an awful lot about the implementation of how some class does some role. -- c
