In the discussions I've had with Steve, one thing that always
nagged me - what's the difference between a class and a role? I
couldn't fix it in my head why there were two separate concepts.
Steve, yesterday, mentioned to me that in the metamodel that he's got
so far, Class does Role. This
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:08:45 -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
couldn't fix it in my head why there were two separate concepts.
The difference between a class and a role is in the eyes of their
consumer - the way in which a class gets new behavior (inheritence,
mixin, or role composition style) is
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:08:45AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: What this means is that classes and roles both quack, swim, and
: lay eggs. They're both just ducks. Given that, there's no need for two
: separate concepts in the implementation. It just makes for a more
: complex implementation.
On 10/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I need to stress that I'm not suggesting that the keyword role
: be removed. It won't be the first time we have keywords that mean the
: same thing, just with a little sugar added. It definitely improves
: maintainability to have separate
Larry,
On Oct 14, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Generics are somewhat orthogonal to the mutable/immutable distinction,
except that they're a better fit for roles because someone has to
choose when to instantiate them, and they're easier to understand
with early binding rather than late
