Perl6 RFC Librarian writes: > For example, rather than: > > my int $intVal = 0; > > you would say: > my $intVal = 0; > $intVal->asInt; > Or possibly even: > my $invVal->asInt = 0; > for simplicity. Do you mean that when we write: my int $intVal = 0; it gets turned into OO stuff? Or do you mean that we won't be writing my int $intVal = 0; any more? I don't like the latter option. It would seem to require more typing to allow something that a minority of people will use. I'd rather than any "variables are represented by objects" magic be done behind the scenes. I don't see the advantage of making the user do all the work. Nat
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migrat... Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/M... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/M... Matt Youell
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration ... Matt Youell
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migrat... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migrat... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration ... Matt Youell
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migrat... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/M... Matt Youell
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Steve Fink
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 161 (v2) OO Integration/Migration Path Nathan Wiger