> I just want to hit this point a little more, to make sure we're actually
> in agreement.
Ok, ok... sorry about this. I've been hammering away at a stubborn gray area
and now I'm seeing that "duh!" it's all right there. Yes, of course 'int'
would be a subclass of Scalar. You know, it's silly... I was getting pissed
because what I was proposing precluded compile-time type checking. But
really, it doesn't, with the mental adjustment that you've shown. This is a
very good thing. Thank you!
Now I need a beer.
> My idea would be to seamlessly integrate this idea with RFC 159. We'd
> use the existing OO structure of Perl 5, only we wouldn't put it on top
> of everything, but put everything on top of IT.
Yes!
> Sound good? If we don't agree 100%, that's fine, I'll just RFC mine
> separately. Even if the idea is the same, if the procedure is markedly
I think we are back in sync, mostly. There are still some differences, but
not enough to spend bandwidth on this early in the game.
As far as the RFC thing goes, it's clear that you've got very definite ideas
about the architectural details. I'm less concerned about what goes on under
the hood/out of sight, and more concerned with the general idea of
"everything's-an-object" and it's impact on the user experience. I think
each view is worthy of it's own RFC. I'd like to update 161 accordingly,
making it more neutral toward implementation details, so it will complement
RFCs such as yours.
Matt
