develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2021

Re: Not an OO RFC, take 2

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Tom Molesworth via perl5-porters
Date:
June 21, 2021 00:35
Subject:
Re: Not an OO RFC, take 2
Message ID:
CAGXhHdksc-=BMnkvxT3NUyBNDzUh0T26HDVq1HXjzB+zT8DTGg@mail.gmail.com
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 08:01, Chris Prather <chris@prather.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 1:30 PM mah.kitteh via perl5-porters
> > I think focusing on proving a more sufficiently power "bless" using the
> keyword "class" would allow sever things; but most importantly focused
> discussion around defining what the "means" as a standalone capability. And
> once this is well defined (again, in terms of bless, etc); then I think
> you'll find a lot of support.
>
> You're welcome to think that, but it's a fundamentally different discussion
> than the one Corinna is having. The problem isn't that `bless` isn't
> powerful
> enough, the problem is that Perl lacks the right primitives.
>
> That's the starting point in the discussion of Corinna. That's the
> irreducible
> piece that if you throw out everything else we still would need to discuss.
>

Interesting as this suggestion is, I don't think this can be called an
irreducible piece at all - Object::Pad already exists without inventing
these primitives, and has the advantage of being compatible with existing
classes.

What you're proposing seems to be a parallel, *incompatible* class
implementation? If so, I don't see how that would be feasible.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About