Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-02 Thread John Tobey
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 12:16:48AM -0400, John Tobey wrote: I agree with Michael that SETUP should be BLESS. You argue that it Oops, I mean Nate. Sorry, Michael! -John

Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-02 Thread Nathan Wiger
Michael G Schwern wrote: Derived classes will never have to override a base's implementation, and all member variables should be private, and everyone will always use an accessor, and the UN will bring about world peace, and as long as I'm wishing for a perfect world, I'd like a pony. ;)

Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-02 Thread John Siracusa
On 9/2/00 11:34 AM, Nathan Wiger wrote: It doesn't seem that it's that hard to add a single line to your SETUP or BLESS or whatever method that calls SUPER::SETUP. I'm pretty sure one of the big points about the system described is that it ensures both that there's always a predictable and

Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-02 Thread Tom Christiansen
The whole notion of blessing is non-obvious enough already. It's the benedictory (con)not(at)ion of blessing, not the bless()ing itself that so confuses people, I think. It bless() were instead named something like mark stamp label brand retype denote notate

Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-02 Thread Damian Conway
I'm still not totally convinced that its so horrid to make the File::LockAndKey DESTROY call $self-SUPER::DESTROY manually... Believe me, it is in a large, deep, and/or MI hierarchy! but it does break encapsulation. Exactly. If you can figure a way out of the dilema I

Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-02 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 03:18:06PM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote: In certain cases, like the one in which you proposed, you'd want to explicitly bypass the parent DESTROY. sub DESTROY { my $self = shift; $self-UNIVERSAL::DESTROY(@_); } would skip the automatic chaining because the

Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-02 Thread Damian Conway
Also, its not entirely clear why method chaining is desired only for constructor and destructors. What about every other method? Constructors and destructors are special. They're not about *doing* something; they're about *being* (or not being) something. A "doing" method *may* wish to

Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-01 Thread John Siracusa
On 9/1/00 5:44 PM, Nathan Wiger wrote: sub SETUP { my ($self, @ctor_data) = @_; # initialization of object referred to by $self occurs here } Hmmm. I'm not sure if I like this. I like the *idea* a lot, but I must say that I think I quite like RFC 171's approach better. I haven't

Re: RFC 189 (v1) Objects : Hierarchical calls to initializers and destructors

2000-09-01 Thread John Tobey
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 08:59:10PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: =head1 ABSTRACT This RFC proposes a new special method called CSETUP that is invoked automagically whenever an object is created. Furthermore, it proposes that both CSETUP and CDESTROY methods should be invoked