> I think, if you look in the archives and the Camel, you'll find that turns
> out not to be the case.
I really don't like putting words in other people's mouths, so I'll
refrain. However, I have read comments from Larry and others in Camel
and perl5-porters that say something akin to this:
1. Objects should be easily embedded and embeddable
2. But don't you dare lose the functionality of a
simple interface
That's what I aimed this proposal at, trying to find a way to satisfy
both these key requirements. I would *never* ditch #2 in favor of #1, no
way.
I agree with what Ken said completely:
> Hey! That sounds like an implementation topic... ;) (The internals
> should be able to handle this if the language wants it, right?)
Let's get the ideas going. The internals might have some honest concerns
that cause us to radically rethink this or dump it later. However, let's
figure out what we want the language to do first, and figure out how to
do it second.
Internals aside, I think if we could get the language to do this it
would be a tremendous step forward. But that's just my opinion.
-Nate
