On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 04:59:19PM -0800, Michael Fowler wrote:
> Which makes me think of the following. You don't need to 'use' a seperate
> module for a procedural or OO interface. The module author could simply
> provide a constructor in the procedural module that would require the OO
> modul
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 12:33:15PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I don't think you can make much valuable progress down that road till
> we know what Larry's thinking about how to support multiple installed
> versions of a module and multiple implementations of the same 'interface'.
I think much of t
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 03:17:36PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "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
> There has been some suggestion of perl not putting the object in the argument
> list when calling a method, but instead having a special var.
>
> If that happens we should be able to test the special var for defined-ness
> to determine how we were called.
>
> Just a thought.
Perl RFC97 sugge
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 04:59:19PM -0800, Michael Fowler wrote:
> 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;
