On Saturday 05 April 2008 17:10:57 Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 09:41:26PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> > I suppose any object would do, it doesn't have to be "but undefined", or
> > created using that Class{hash} syntax?
>
> Possibly. Haven't really thought through the ramifications, and it
> feels a bit like the problem of confusing clone with new. It would
> be pretty easy for idioms to arise that create a lot of useless
> temporary objects. You can only sweep so much under the carpet of
> "the optimizer could fix it"...
>
> In any case, the programmer really needs to keep straight when
> an object is being used for its value vs when it's being used
> for its type. Maybe that's not an issue here.
Parrot-wise, right now that's somewhat more expensive than it should be. The
carpet's not as large as I wish it were. (However it's possible not to
require instantiating a new object or class for type checks, let's do that!)
> We have another possible level of granularity there too, insofar as we
> could trust a single multi or a proto that represents all multis in
> its scope. Maybe a proto exported from within a class automatically
> conveys trust to all normal multis (of the same name) declared the
> import scope.
Something about that I like.
> > Also, since classes can be re-opened, anyone can grab trust from any
> > class anyway, just by declaring a new method inside that class.
> Well, sure. But whenever the programmer does that, the Perl 6 compiler
> will automatically send email to the programmer's supervisor. :)
If you mean "The World's Most Maintainable Programming Language", that was an
April Fool's joke.
-- c
