Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from January 2002
My, myself, and I said/say: > > > My question is, why are blocks like FIRST not inherited? > Anyhow, for catcher blocks, I was originally thinking that if > you name a block, then it would be inheritable, and would > be inherited by default. Some sips of my morning cup of tea later... Hmm. I've realized that the inherited-by-default has to go because there can be multiple blocks of each type, so insertion must be explicit to ensure ordering is defined. I also forgot to emphasize a positive point. One issue here is inheritance granularity. A problem with the 'inner' (or 'inherited' or similar) approach used by many oo languages is that it's an all-or-nothing-insert-at-one-spot capability. If one could break out arbitrary blocks and name them, and then inherit on a block by block basis, well, that's definitely more granular, even if the whole idea of inheritance of FIRST et al is not good for other reasons that are currently beyond my ken. --meThread Previous | Thread Next