Graham Barr wrote:
This would
appear largely transparent to the user, right up until they tried to do
isa() or ref() tests on the object.
But that is the catch. Now if the language was to give us a way to support
both in the same package in an efficient way, so much the better.
As much as I'm not for it, would
having
sub foo :method {} # In objects vtbl
and
sub foo {} # only if procedural call
being a valid construct and having perl dispatch appropriately, be
viable?
chaim
"GB" == Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"GB" == Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GB On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 10:14:36AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
As much as I'm not for it, would
having
sub foo :method {} # In objects vtbl
and
sub foo {} # only if procedural call
being a valid construct
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:30:28AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I'll just make up some alternatives for everyone to shoot at:
use Foo;# like CGI.pm, morphs on demand
use Foo;# procedural Foo
use OOFoo;
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 12:33:15PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:30:28AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
use Foo;# like CGI.pm, morphs on demand
use Foo;# procedural Foo
use OOFoo; #
[Graham Barr wrote]
So what do most people think
1. OK
2. Choose one
3. Have both, but in separate modules
Someone should probably write an RFC if it is to be either 2 or 3
[this isn't an RFC but...]
I would imagine that having a policy that stdlib is all OO or all non-OO
would upset
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:13:38AM +0100, John Berthels wrote:
I would imagine that having a policy that stdlib is all OO or all non-OO
would upset enough people to be a bad idea.
I agree entirely.
So I like (3). With the additional note that if we standardise a method
of doing so then the
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:41:20 +0100, Hildo Biersma wrote:
Could we agree on the idea that CGI.pm should be split up?
No. I could agree that
CGI-somemethod(@args);
would do exactly the same as
CGI::somemethod(@args);
i.e. no difference between function calls and class methods,
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:58:34 +0100, Hildo Biersma wrote:
Yikes. Class method calls should perform inheritance, subroutine calls
should not.
I agree with that.
Altering the language to make the two look the same is a bad
idea, because it breaks, fatally, as soon as the class supports more
than
