Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from June 2001
I'd think that @ISA would be copied to .ISA on object instantiation, and after that the two wouldn't have anything to do with each other. We could set up one of those cool copy-on-write locks everyone's been talking about to save memory too. Or we could have it default to @ISA if .ISA doesn't exist, which is basically what Bart's saying, so I guess I agree with him, maybe. (Although I do think that when .ISA is created, it should get @ISA, whenever that happens to be.) -----Original Message----- From: Bart Lateur [mailto:bart.lateur@skynet.be] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 17:59 To: perl6-language@perl.org Subject: Re: Multiple classifications of an object On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:48:38 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: >And the current @ISA stuff is MI, >albeit on a per-class basis rather than on a per-object one. > >Anyway, as Damian mentioned, setting the .ISA property is a perfectly >reasonable sort of thing to do if the language supports this. Just one question. If an object would have both per-object inheritance (.ISA), and per class inheritance (@ISA), which one would have precedence? If there's a conflict, a method exists both for a superclass and for an object superclass (i.e. through .ISA), which list would be checked first? Which method would be picked, and executed? FWIW, I think I'd vote for .ISA, as it is more individually tied to this particular object. The other one is generic.