Jonadab the Unsightly One writes: > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Next Apocalypse is objects, and that'll take time. > > Objects are *worth* more time than a lot of the other topics. > Arguably, they're just as important as subroutines, in a modern > language. > > Speaking of objects... are we going to have a built-in object forest, > like Inform has, where irrespective of class any given object can have > up to one parent at any given time, which can change at runtime, and > be able to declare objects as starting out their lives with a given > parent object, move them at runtime from one parent to another (taking > any of their own children that they might have along with them), fetch > a list of the children or siblings of an object, and so forth?
Not.. exactly that. There are a lot of useful object systems around, and it's not like Perl to choose just one of them. In Perl 5, it was possible to change your parent I<classes> at runtime, but that's because data wasn't a part of Perl 5's (minimalist) classes. In Perl 6, classes associate attributes with themselves, so I imagine that it's only possible to switch parent objects, not parent classes. And I also presume that an object can have as many parents as it likes. Also, the "standard library", however large or small that will be, will definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java "you can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't" crap. Luke
