Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Not really... 'does' will try to compose the CGI::Simple methods to the
CGI class (although I think your example was supposed to be CGI::Simple
does CGI, but anyway).

Hardly. Ovid said that CGI has more functionality than CGI::Simple.
So the hope for CGI.does(CGI::Simple) being true is that the common
parts are compatible. The other way around CGI::Simple.does(CGI) is
false because of missing functionality. The idea of deriving from a
base and then disabling functionality is another classical OO fallacy.

You don't want to change the class
implementation, you just want to annotate an additional 'interface' on
the given implementation.

I hope that the does operator is clever enough to find out that
everything needed for CGI doing CGI::Simple is already in there.
So apart from noting the nominal subtype relation somewhere in
the HOW or WHAT of CGI this operation is a no-op.

I'm actually not sure that you can have 'CGI does CGI::Simple', since
CGI::Simple is not a role...

An intermediate, anonymous class is a mere implementation detail ;)

Regards, TSa.

"The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- A.J. Perlis
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12  -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Reply via email to