On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Jason Switzer <jswit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:10 AM, <pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> > - class Buf does Positional {...}
> > + class Buf does Positional does Stringy {...}
> >
>
> I never really thought about this, but now that I see it here, it made me
> realize that how 'does' works seems verbose. I think we should be able to
> specify a list instead of a bunch of 'does' statements. For example, the
> above example should be written as
>
> class Buf does Positional, Stringy { ... }
>
>
Pro:
* Shorter can be good
* It's pretty clear what's going on.
Con:
* Composition is complicated. Explicit "does foo" calls that out
* Something like:
class Buf
does Positional
does Stringy
{ ... }
... looks to me like a laundry list of what I need to be aware of when
considering this class's uses, brace style preferences notwithstanding.
My knee-jerk response would be that this is fine the way it is now, but
perhaps adding your suggestion as an alternative syntax could be considered
for >6.0?
Then again, no one cares what I say ;-)
--
Aaron Sherman
Email or GTalk: a...@ajs.com
http://www.ajs.com/~ajs
