Kevan Benson wrote:
> That said, I submit that it's a very confusing part of the language as
> defined currently, and I haven't seen a very thorough explanation of the
> purpose of each method in the chain the instantiates a new object. S12
> touches upon them slightly, but not in enough detail
Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Kevan Benson wrote:
That said, I submit that it's a very confusing part of the language as
defined currently, and I haven't seen a very thorough explanation of the
purpose of each method in the chain the instantiates a new object. S12
to
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Kevan Benson wrote:
>
>
> That said, I submit that it's a very confusing part of the language as
> defined currently, and I haven't seen a very thorough explanation of the
> purpose of each method in the chain the instantiates a new object. S12
> touches upon them
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Kevan Benson wrote:
Should there not be a way to define object constructors with custom
signatures that can be usefully invoked like a normal constructor?
Currently, defining a BUILD method for a class with a specific signature
doesn't seem to allow for the object to be inv
Kevan Benson wrote:
> Should there not be a way to define object constructors with custom
> signatures that can be usefully invoked like a normal constructor?
>
> Currently, defining a BUILD method for a class with a specific signature
> doesn't seem to allow for the object to be invoked by new
On 2009-Aug-19, at 4:37 pm, Kevan Benson wrote:
I'm aware there's a default constructor that allows named parameters
to be set, but I think the usefulness of allowing specific
constructors that take defined parameters and initialize the object
as needed should not be overlooked. E.g.
my
Em Qua, 2009-08-19 às 15:37 -0700, Kevan Benson escreveu:
> Should there not be a way to define object constructors with custom
> signatures that can be usefully invoked like a normal constructor?
What's the problem with
method new(Str $timestamp) {
self.SUPER::new(ts => strptime('...',$times
I think the "too much magic" is in automatically creating the
appropriate "new" method with that signature. I idea is to get the
standard behavior, which is to define a method that's signature is used
for the instantiation.
Currently, I believe you have to define at least new and BUILD, not
I'm confused. The signature of initialize is used by Class.new in
Ruby; the signature of __init__ is used by class_name() in Python...
How is doing the same thing too much magic? Or am I misunderstanding
the suggestion?
On 8/19/09, Kevan Benson wrote:
>
> Should there not be a way to define obj
Should there not be a way to define object constructors with custom
signatures that can be usefully invoked like a normal constructor?
Currently, defining a BUILD method for a class with a specific signature
doesn't seem to allow for the object to be invoked by new with that
signature and be
10 matches
Mail list logo
