On 2/7/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, and the modeling point of view is that $pipe is *also* just
> a representation of the Pipe.  Neither Pipe nor $pipe is the thing
> itself.  Most computer programs are about Something Else, so computer
> languages should be optimized for talking about other things rather
> than talking about themselves.  The answer to
>     Pipe.can("Smoke")
>     $pipe.can("Smoke")
> should be the same, not different.  On the other hand,
>     ^Pipe.can("Smoke")
> is a different matter, insofar as you're asking a question about a Class
> object rather than a Pipe object.  And now you get your Platonism back.
> You just have to be explicit about it.

I see the value of ^Pipe and $pipe as seperate objects which can be
manipulated programmatically.  What I don't really understand is what
exactly Pipe is and where it would be useful.

They way you have described Pipe feels a little muddy to me and I am
unsure about its purpose and semantics.  Is it just an object I ask
`.can()` or does it have some deeper usefulness?

"Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory."
-Stan Kelly-Bootle, The Devil's DP Dictionary

Reply via email to