At 07:54 PM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >> > method m1
> >> > {
> >> > m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> >> Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
> >> or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
> >> do the latter?
> >
> > This may be a case of keep up at the back, but if that is a method call,
> > how do I call a subroutine from within a method ?
>
>And anyone who says "You don't" will receive a good hard talking to
>from me. Being able to declare private subroutines within classes is
>really useful, witness:
>
> class SchemeNumber is SchemeExpr {
> my sub apply($self: $target, $rhs, &block) {
> if $is_rhs { $self.new(+ &block( $target, $self.value )) }
> else { $self.new(+ &block( $self.value, $target )) }
> }
>
> method operator:+ { apply(*@_, {$^a + $^b}) }
> method operator:* { apply(*@_, {$^a * $^b}) }
> method operator:- { apply(*@_, {$^a * $^b}) }
> method operator:/ { apply(*@_, {$^a * $^b}) }
>
> method is_number { 1 }
> }
>
>Yes, I know there's several different ways I could do it, but this
>approach feels right.
I agree, however you passed in the invocant so there is no
ambiguity in your case.
Calling a class method off of an object, I've found use for.
Calling an instance method from a class invocant scope doesn't
make sense to me which is what I _think_ Graham's example
was implying.
I suppose this would be akin to:
if(typeof(self) is 'class') {
...
}
else { # instance
...
}
I think that would be just plain bad design, but I'd be happy if someone
showed me a use for it. :)
-Melvin
