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