roles (Was: enums and bitenums)

2003-12-11 Thread Jonathan Lang
I'm invoking the principle that the only stupid question is the one not asked: Larry Wall wrote: if indeed properties can be unified with roles (and roles with classes). Based on the source material pointed to as your inspiration for roles, I'm a little confused as to how roles and classes

Re: roles (Was: enums and bitenums)

2003-12-11 Thread Paul Hodges
--- Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incidently, I think I've caught on to _one_ of the concepts in the upcoming object-orientation proposal: linguistically, there's a triad of basic verbs - namely be, do, and have. If I'm following things properly, one could think of an object's

Re: roles (Was: enums and bitenums)

2003-12-11 Thread chromatic
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 18:15, Jonathan Lang wrote: Based on the source material pointed to as your inspiration for roles, I'm a little confused as to how roles and classes could be unified. From what I read in the source material, a key point of a role (well, they weren't actually calling it

Re: roles (Was: enums and bitenums)

2003-12-11 Thread Jonathan Lang
Paul Hodges wrote: Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incidently, I think I've caught on to _one_ of the concepts in the upcoming object-orientation proposal: linguistically, there's a triad of basic verbs - namely be, do, and have. If I'm following things properly, one could think