> On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:53, Stevan Little wrote:
> > With p5, you /can/ get to the underlying data structure. This is a
> > break which will hamper the backwards compatibility effort I think.
> With Perl 5, you can *appear* to get to the underlying data structure.  Yet
> tie() is basically free on Ponie and there's a metaclass mediating access to
> the underlying storage.  I think that makes the problem solvable.


> (Does using an alternate type of storage mean you need an alternate metaclass?
> Perhaps, perhaps not -- but the practical effects of syntax have to come from
> somewhere.)

Actually I was thinking this might be the best approach. I have been
dabbling more and more with CLOS lately and am not seeing where a
full-fledge attribute meta-object is probably a really good idea (in
the current model the meta-attribute is very very slim).

> As long as you can use Perl 5 classes in Perl 6 without rewriting all of the
> Perl 5 code, I'm happy.

Yes, this is the ultimate goal. I never wanted to get rid of &bless,
only to resolve what I saw as an inconsistency with the use of &bless
and some of the other aspects of the Perl 6 design.


Reply via email to