At 02:51 PM 3/13/2002 +0000, Tim Bunce wrote: >On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:03:13AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > I like the fact that we're adding an arg to init to decide how big to > > make the resulting PMC. It got me to thinking, though. Perhaps we'd > > be even better served if we passed in something a bit more complex. > > > > We are, after all, likely to get something like this at the perl level: > > > > my Str @foo is dim(10, 10, 10), encoding "Shift-JIS", > > max_len(40), autochomp; > > > > or something sort of like that. We'd really like to pass in the dim, > > encoding, max_len, and autochomp to the init method, so it can init > > things properly. > >You're presuming that a single 'init' *should* look after all that. > >That doesn't seem very practical or extensible etc. > >I recall Larry saying something (roughly) along the lines that >attributes, like the above, could be thought of, and possibly >implemented as, method/function calls on the variable/value. >That seems like a much more extensible approach.
With more overhead on object creation though. new, set, set, set... "Encoding" and "autochomp" might fall into the language specific category, then I would agree about implementing a method for each. Memory footprint and dimensions are common to most languages, so to me, it makes more sense as a constructor. -Melvin
