On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:34:34AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:25:05AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > I'll have to think about the rest of your proposal, but I was suddenly
: > struck with the thought that our "platonic" Class objects are really
: > forms of undef:
: > 
: >     say defined IO; # prints 0
: Hmm, bool::false stringifies to '0'?

Well, okay, maybe I meant:

   say +defined IO; # prints 0

: Also, isn't IO an instance of Class, and hence defined?

It's up to the instance to tell you whether it's defined or undefined.
Perl 5 guarantees that all refs are defined, but Perl 6 makes no
such guarantee.  The whole interesting-undef thing depends on this.

: My current understanding is that the typechecker considers IO to be of
: Class type, not of IO type; the fact that IO.does(IO) is true is purely
: an illusion created by special dispatch for .does.

Well, that's what I thought last week.  :-)

But these days I'm wondering if the whole point of a class is to proxy
for its missing members, and everything else is deferred to the metaclass.

: Am I way off base? :)

Maybe, but it doesn't matter if your teammate just knocked a home run.
Unfortunately the ball is still in the air, and we don't know if it'll
clear the fence, or land in someone's mit.


Reply via email to