Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
On 13 September 2011 16:21, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote: > It looks as if we currently have *no* unambiguous way to call class > methods. Some people have been calling for the option to refer > to a package by its stash in Perl space, particularly to allow for > anonymous classes. I think this issue provides another good reason to > move towards that sort of system. As I pointed out yesterday on IRC, > there's inevitable pain if we break the current tacit guarantee that every > class has an absolute name that can be used to look it up. I think I > didn't make clear, though, that I do think the gain is worth this effort. > > I'm dubious about using stashes themselves, as they currently exist, > as the core class metaobject. I think the visible metaobject should > be visibly of a different type from hashes. That's not a major hassle: > stashes are already somewhat more magical than ordinary hashes. So, if I understand that last paragraph, that implies new syntax ?Thread Previous | Thread Next