On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Jason Switzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:10 AM, <[email protected]> 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 { ... } > > Pro: * Shorter can be good * It's pretty clear what's going on. Con: * 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: [email protected] http://www.ajs.com/~ajs
