On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:49:08PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote: > Allison Randal wrote: > >>I think the object model needs a thorough going over in general > >Yup. It's on the list right after I/O, threads, and events. > >... > >Ruby is a serious OO language, but it's not finished yet. For that > >matter, Perl 6 is partially implemented. But, I entirely agree on the > >core point that pushing these languages forward will help push Parrot > >forward. > > > And pushing Parrot's OO support forward will enable these languages to > be pushed forwards some more. :-) > > Would it be a good idea to start collecting requirements together from > different language implementors so that when the time comes to work on > the OO PDD, there is already a good description of what it needs to do? > If so, I'm happy to make a start on a first cut and maintain it (e.g. > accept patches to it from anyone who wants to contribute but doesn't > have a commit bit).
I'll be very happy to see this and contribute where I can. For my immediate/near-term future needs, I'm reasonably happy with Parrot's existing implementation, with the exception that classnames in HLLs seem to conflict with Parrot's pre-existing classnames (and perhaps those of other HLLs). Pm
