Re: Draft RFC: my Dog $spot is just an assertion

2000-09-13 Thread Hildo Biersma
Piers Cawley wrote: =head1 ABSTRACT The behaviour of the my Dog $spot syntax should simply be an assertion of the invariant: (!defined($spot) || (ref($spot) $spot-isa('Dog))) Apart from the buglet that Damian pointed out, agree. Instead of an implementation based on tie, I'd rather

Re: Draft RFC: new pragma: Cuse namespace

2000-09-13 Thread Hildo Biersma
Piers Cawley wrote: =head1 ABSTRACT Cmy Big::Long::Prefix::Class $object = Big::Long::Prefix::Class-Egtnew is a pain in the bum to type. We should replace this with use namespace 'Big::Long::Prefix'; my ::Class $object = ::Class-new; This is a bit dangerous, since we can get

Re: Draft RFC: new pragma: Cuse namespace

2000-09-13 Thread Hildo Biersma
Piers Cawley wrote: This is a bit dangerous, since we can get into ambiguities again. If I have A::B::C::Foo, A::B::C::Bar, X::Y::Z::Foo and X::Y::Z::Bar, I'd like to use shorthands for A::B::C's Foo and X::Y::Z's Bar at the same time. Well you can't. The patch that I pinched this

Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call a constructor implicitly

2000-08-30 Thread Hildo Biersma
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:04:26PM -0400, Michael Maraist wrote: First greatly stylistic compatibilty. An inexperienced programmer would see: my Dog $spot = "Spot"; And become confused. It's totally unintuitive (at least so far as other mainstream OO