Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from May 2008
HaloO, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Not really... 'does' will try to compose the CGI::Simple methods to the > CGI class (although I think your example was supposed to be CGI::Simple > does CGI, but anyway). Hardly. Ovid said that CGI has more functionality than CGI::Simple. So the hope for CGI.does(CGI::Simple) being true is that the common parts are compatible. The other way around CGI::Simple.does(CGI) is false because of missing functionality. The idea of deriving from a base and then disabling functionality is another classical OO fallacy. > You don't want to change the class > implementation, you just want to annotate an additional 'interface' on > the given implementation. I hope that the does operator is clever enough to find out that everything needed for CGI doing CGI::Simple is already in there. So apart from noting the nominal subtype relation somewhere in the HOW or WHAT of CGI this operation is a no-op. > I'm actually not sure that you can have 'CGI does CGI::Simple', since > CGI::Simple is not a role... An intermediate, anonymous class is a mere implementation detail ;) Regards, TSa. -- "The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare "Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa RamanujanThread Previous | Thread Next