On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 02:18 +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 13:08:27 -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > Closed classes should not exist. > > > > At least, they should only exist if the person *running* Perl 6 wants > > them to exist -- never if merely the class writer wants to close them. > In theory I agree, and I hope that will be the defacto way of doing > it, but if perl 6 gets compiled portably to many different > bytecodes (which it seems like it will) someone somewhere will write > a backend which allows people to encrypt, and people will use it. > > I think this is something we need to accept, even if it isn't > something we like. I don't care if people encrypt their code. I don't have to use it. I just don't want people who merely write a module or class to be able to prevent people who actually use that module or class from using, extending, or poking around in it. No Java "final", unless you're the one running the program. -- c
