> -----Original Message----- > From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-23 13:33 (-0400): > > I should then be able to call class methods of Dog via $spot > > without further initialization: > > print defined($spot); # FALSE > > $rover = $spot.new; > > @breeds = $spot.list_breeds; > > But shouldn't you then just use "my Class $spot = Dog" then? Or maybe > just "my $spot := Dog"?
Hmm, no. The point is that typed-undef should know what to do, by default, when calling class methods. And maybe it should even call non-class (i.e., "object") methods, with a typed-undef invocant. > > This is, as pointed out, just sugar for Dog::new and Dog::list_breeds, but > > it brings up the spectre of undef invocants: > > :: or .? I'm confused. It's :: to indicate class::function naming. > > $c->foo->bar->baz; # If foo or bar fails, what happens? > > -> or .? Even more confused now. $c.foo.bar.baz Sorry, I've been PHPing a lot. =Austin
