"Simon Cozens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > Verbs are almost always associated with their subject in OO languages, > so I don't see where you're coming from.
Actually, the important part of it was the 3rd option (the multimethod): sometimes the association is symmetrical. I was pointing out that the concept -> OO mapping is very lossy. > > All of those seem to loose the preposition. Are sat_on and sat_beside > > really completely independent things? > > Under perl's grammar: yes. > Well, no, as I've just demonstrated. I must have missed it in your post. I saw no Perl grammar that sees the commonality between .sit_on and .sit_beside. Perl thinks of them as two independent methods (The programmer can choose to implement them with some commonality). We seem happy to structure objects (using attributes, etc.), but verbs remain flat and uninteresting: just arbitrary names. As a result of this lack of expressiveness in the grammar, we find ourselves saying that if a concept doesn't fit the "everything is an object" worldview, then it needs to be a built-in. I'm not saying that I have an alternative: just explaining why we keep proposing built-ins instead of using the methods on objects. Dave.
