> Also, its not entirely clear why method chaining is desired only for > constructor and destructors. What about every other method? Constructors and destructors are special. They're not about *doing* something; they're about *being* (or not being) something. A "doing" method *may* wish to make the object do everything its hierarchy allows it to do: that's why I proposed C<NEXT>. A "being" method *must* make the object be everything its hierarchy requires it to be: that's why I proposed hierarchical constructors and destructors. Damian
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical cal... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls t... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical cal... John Siracusa
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarc... John Siracusa
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hie... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls t... Mike Lambert
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical cal... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical cal... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to in... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls t... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initial... Mike Lambert
- Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initial... John Tobey