On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 03:00:57PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Can role definitions be nested? That is:
:
: role A {
: role subRole1 {...};
: role subRole2 {...};
: ...
: };
:
: As I see it, this ought to be equivelent to
:
: role A::subRole1 {...};
: role A::subRole2 {...};
: role A {
: does A::subRole1; does A::subRole2;
: ...
: };
:
: The advantage of doing things this way is that you'd be able cluster
: related attributes and methods together within a role (or within a class,
: for that matter) - clusters which make sense within the main role, but
: probably don't have enough importance to be created as "standalone" roles.
I don't think a nested role would automatically "do" itself, but you
could probably say:
role A {
does role subRole1 {...};
does role subRole2 {...};
...
};
At which point we all gang up on you and beat you to a pulp for being
overly analytical. :-)
Larry
