On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 05:04:29PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 02:49 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >Which implies, I assume, that "interface" is not the default state of
> >a class method, e.g. we do need something like "method foo() is
> >interface { ... }" to declare any given method
>
> Flippin' hell, never mind. You're almost certainly talking about a
> style like:
>
> interface Vehicle {
> method foo () { ... }
> method bar () { ... }
> }
Definately not that.
> - or -
> class Vehicle is interface {
> ...
> }
>
<snip>
> class Vehicle {
> method foo () is interface { ... }
> method bar () is interface { ... }
> method zap () is private { ... }
> }
Perhaps both of the above, but only if methods-as-interfaces have to be
explicitly declared. I like the "class Vehicle is interface" as a shorthand
for declaring every method of a class to be an interface.
It depends on if method signatures are enforced on subclasses by default, or
if you have to explicitly declare yourself to be an interface. That's up in
the air in my mind.
Orthoginal to that decision is if a subclass should be able to explicitly
ignore its parent's interface and conditions. I started by leaning towards
yes, now I'm thinking no.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
Plus I remember being impressed with Ada because you could write an
infinite loop without a faked up condition. The idea being that in Ada
the typical infinite loop would be normally be terminated by detonation.
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
