Re: Classes with several, mostly unused, attributes

2004-12-15 Thread David Storrs
On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote: I think that "slackness-on-demand" is a better policy than "strictness-on-demand", but that, again, is just my opinion Until now, the policy in Perl has always been that it is as slack and forgiving as possible, and you have to ask if you w

Re: Classes with several, mostly unused, attributes

2004-12-15 Thread Abhijit Mahabal
David Storrs wrote: On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote: I think that "slackness-on-demand" is a better policy than "strictness-on-demand", but that, again, is just my opinion Until now, the policy in Perl has always been that it is as slack and forgiving as possible, and you

Re: Classes with several, mostly unused, attributes

2004-12-15 Thread Paul Hodges
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > . . . . > Obviously, however @Larry decide it should be, is the way it'll be > and nothing I can say will change that. Au contraire -- that's what this list is for. State your opinion, man! :) > That said: this would suck. Badly. > We should not be

Re: Classes with several, mostly unused, attributes

2004-12-15 Thread Luke Palmer
Paul Hodges writes: > That said, it's the strange and usually VERY old script that doesn't > start with > > use strict; > use warnings; Moreover, it should be a clue to us that there's a shirt stating: #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; Hinting that this is the way you start a perl prog

Re: Classes with several, mostly unused, attributes

2004-12-15 Thread David Storrs
On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:05 AM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote: Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1, side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which will not be needed for most instances of Geometry

Re: Classes with several, mostly unused, attributes

2004-12-15 Thread Abhijit Mahabal
David Storrs wrote: Incidentally, I just want to go on record as saying that the verbosity of class declarations in P6 is really starting to skeeve me. I keep reminding myself that these are the edge cases that are being discussed, that you don't need all this stuff for the common case (right?)

Re: Classes with several, mostly unused, attributes

2004-12-15 Thread David Storrs
On Dec 15, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote: David Storrs wrote: On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote: I think that "slackness-on-demand" is a better policy than "strictness-on-demand", but that, again, is just my opinion Until now, the policy in Perl has always been that