Melvin Smith wrote:
> I see the potential for another Perl 'non-warning' bug, where
> someone typed:
>
> class Appliance {
> ...mucho lines of code...
> }
>
> class Toaster is appliance {
> ...
> }
That's probably an "Undefined property 'appliance' ascribed to class Toaster" error.
> It scares me to be able to _declare_ a new attribute with the same operator
> that I typically use to _inherit_ an existing class or property.
This is a good point. I suppose that, instead of just:
class Derived is Base {...}
the syntax might end up as:
class Derived is inheriting(Base) {...}
or:
class Derived is subclass_of(Base) {...}
or even just:
class Derived is a(Base) {...}
Larry?
> Why not make 'is' a little tidier; require us to declare attributes inline, and
> let us tag _objects_ (not classes) at runtime with different notation?
Err...okay. How about C<but> instead of C<is> for objects?
See <http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/04/01/exegesis4.html?page=5#cache and return>.
Damian
