Carl Mäsak wrote: > * It is my feeling that such encapsulation-breakage shouldn't be > allowed. Do you agree, p6l?
Time may proof me wrong, but I think it's not such a big issue. Note that encapsulation can be broken in many ways already, wither with MONKEY_TYPING or by using introspection techniques (which aren't fully specced yet, but they *will* exist. In case of doubt you can just parse .perl output). > * If it isn't allowed, which of the two steps is disallowed? > *Detaching* a method containing references to private accessor slots > (thereby extending the syntactic restriction of "no private accessors > outside of the class block"), or *attaching* an anonymous method to an > object belonging to a different class than the one from which it was > detached (thereby by necessity having to complicate anonymous methods > somewhat)? There's a third possiblity - $!foo being bound to the $!foo attribute of the lexically enclosing class at compile-time. So that re-attaching methods make them still refer to the old attribute. Not sure if it's a good idea, just food for thought. Cheeers, Moritz -- Moritz Lenz http://perlgeek.de/ | http://perl-6.de/ | http://sudokugarden.de/
