At 4:29 PM -0600 10/5/02, John Williams wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
>> Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> >
>> > There won't be any direct access to attributes outside class methods
>> > of the class that defines the attributes, unless Larry changes his
>> > mind in a big way. (And, honestly, probably not even then) Instead
>> > it'll all be accessed via lvalue methods. If an attribute is exposed
>> > there's just an lvalue method created, if it's not exposed there
>> > isn't.
>>
>> Ack! Hold on, there: I'm being told that Damian thinks lvalues are
>> probably out, and that Larry thinks that pseudo-attributes will be made
>> accessed through the use of lvalues. Please confirm, which is it? I
>> don't particularly care, I just want to write an example down in
>> best-guess form.
>
>I think everyone agrees that some sort of simple accessor syntax will be
>included (instead of the getX/setX hack). But will accessors _look_ like
>attributes or methods?
They'll look like methods, since attributes don't look like either of
your alternatives. :) Besides, they'll *be* methods. Only class
methods get to look directly at attributes and the syntax is
different. I'd expect lvalue methods, but there are reasons to do it
other ways.
>Personally, I hope they look like attributes. But if they do, the perl5
>lvalue subs are not the way to do it.
Right, but since this isn't perl 5, there's not much of a problem
there. Just because things are sub-optimal in perl 5 doesn't mean
we're doomed in perl 6 to reimplement it the same suboptimal way.
This is our chance to make brand new mistakes.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
