On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:51:55PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:53:29PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > The type of metaobject Foo.meta might be called "Class" if that's what the
> > metaobject protocol decides it should be, but Perl the Language doesn't
> > care. If so, then Foo.meta.isa(Class) would be true. But Foo.isa(Class)
> > is still false.
> OK, in my previous message, you should apparently read "metaobject" for
> "type object". But I think the questions still apply, as does the proposal
> that all _metaobjects_ that currently are correlated with packages should
> instead just _do_ Package.
And again I must correct myself, the above doesn't make sense.
Based on what I'm seeing, the Perl 6 "type object" is the thing that claims
the primary name associated with a class. Foo::<Bar> is the type object.
The metaobject seems to be anonymous. And the package seems to be fairly
questionable... given how generic you want to be, the Perl 6 implmentation
probably can't assume that there is exactly one package associated with a
given type object, either directly or indirectly.
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>