Re: Ramblings on "base class" for SV etc.

[Nick Ing-Simmons]

Chaim Frenkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>I don't recall anyone commenting on my suggestion:
>
>Have every Package generate a vtbl for each subroutine in the package.
>Then when something is blessed into the package (if this is retained for
>OO) then the objects vtbl becomes the precompiled merger of vtbls based
>upon the inheritence tree.

Single inherticance is fairly easy. Multiple inheritance gets messy very 
quickly and you end up with C++.

It is far from clear that there is a _necessary_ connection between the 
OO-in-C we use in the core and the OO-in-perl that language itself 
has. 

In practice having _some_ OO-ness in the core should help OO extension 
modules a little.


>
>If we use a TIL for the engine then the vtbl is a direct
>pointer. Otherwise it can be trampoline code.

Trampolines are a pain ;-)


>
><chaim>
-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons