Aaron Sherman wrote:
<replies snipped />
>Is the goal to avoid namespace pollution? If so, shouldn't there be a 
>truly "metaish" way of getting at the internal namespace so that someone 
>doesn't accidentally render an object unusable by defining the wrong 
>method name (which you can prevent with an error if the object is 
>defined in Perl, but not if it's defined in Parrot or another language)? 
>Imagine this code:

<code snipped />

>IMHO, the golden rule of programming languages should be: if you need a 
>namespace, create one.

IANAL (Linguist?  Language-designer? Larry?), but...

Is there any reason these "meta" methods could not be part of some default 
function package like Math::Basic and Math::Trig?  The package could be called 
Class::InterrogativePronouns, or Object::MetaModel, or 
ProgrammingLanguage::Pollution.  And it could be loaded by default.  Or not.  
That decision is far above my paygrade.

I know the names I proposed are silly, but the idea is worth thought, and it 
would obey Aaron's golden rule, above.

It might also make it a little more obvious to new folks like me where other 
kinds of introspection (I really can imagine WHENCE and WHITHER being useful) 
would be added in down the road.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this they'd be willing to share?


Reply via email to