On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Jason Switzer <jswit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:10 AM, <pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl> wrote:
> >
> > -    class Buf does Positional {...}
> > +    class Buf does Positional does Stringy {...}
> >
> I never really thought about this, but now that I see it here, it made me
> realize that how 'does' works seems verbose. I think we should be able to
> specify a list instead of a bunch of 'does' statements. For example, the
> above example should be written as
> class Buf does Positional, Stringy { ... }
* Shorter can be good
* It's pretty clear what's going on.

* Composition is complicated. Explicit "does foo" calls that out
* Something like:

  class Buf
    does Positional
    does Stringy
  { ... }

... looks to me like a laundry list of what I need to be aware of when
considering this class's uses, brace style preferences notwithstanding.

My knee-jerk response would be that this is fine the way it is now, but
perhaps adding your suggestion as an alternative syntax could be considered
for >6.0?

Then again, no one cares what I say ;-)

Aaron Sherman
Email or GTalk: a...@ajs.com

Reply via email to