> Damian, I think it would be worth at least mentioning BLESS and REBLESS
> in an "Alternative Names" section in the RFC. Enough people have voiced
> concerns over this that I think these two are worth putting in there.
As I mentioned in another message, I'll be doing that.
> The
> Given that is happens when bless is called and that all other builtin
> methods are anmed after what is being called, not what it is being used
> for, then I would say that it should be called BLESS for consistancy reason.
>
> this may seem confusing because you are thinking of o
Graham Barr wrote:
>
> Given that is happens when bless is called and that all other builtin
> methods are anmed after what is being called, not what it is being used
> for, then I would say that it should be called BLESS for consistancy reason.
>
> this may seem confusing because you are thinki
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:09:18AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But I've gotta nitpick the name. I wonder if BLESS wouldn't be better?
> >> print calls PRINT, printf calls PRINTF, even if the subs don't do any
> >> printing. Sure makes
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But I've gotta nitpick the name. I wonder if BLESS wouldn't be better?
>> print calls PRINT, printf calls PRINTF, even if the subs don't do any
>> printing. Sure makes it easier to see what's going on, to me at least.
>
> But BLESS doesn't
> BLESS is still my top choice by far, because while it doesn't do any
> blessing, it's obvious what it's attached to.
I think it's misleading.
> Remember, PRINT and PRINTF don't have to do any printing, nor do
> POP, PUSH, etc, have to do any popping or pushing.
But SETUP *neve
> Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > * invoke some other hierarchy of automagic methods
> > (REFIT? RESHAPE? MORPH? TRANSMOGRIFY?), or
REINCARNATE
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> * invoke some other hierarchy of automagic methods
> (REFIT? RESHAPE? MORPH? TRANSMOGRIFY?), or
If we do go this way, then we should make sure any names follow suit:
BLESS REBLESS
CREATE RECREATE
INVOKE REINVOKE
SHAPE
On 9/1/00 8:39 PM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> What happens on reblessing?
Go back to the old behavior in that case? (Re-blessing has always
smelled like "Perl casting" to me...ick.) Maybe we'd need an "unbless" to
round out the desired (evil ;) functionality.
-John
> But I've gotta nitpick the name. I wonder if BLESS wouldn't be better?
> print calls PRINT, printf calls PRINTF, even if the subs don't do any
> printing. Sure makes it easier to see what's going on, to me at least.
But BLESS doesn't do blessing. It does set-up. So it's called SETUP. :
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> The point of welding SETUP calls to C is that it gives the class
> designer a way of guaranteeing that you can't create an object (i.e. bless
> it) without invoking the initialization.
Actually, this is a good point that I hadn't fully considered. Ok, I've
invoked Larry'
11 matches
Mail list logo
