develooper Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from March 2005

Re: MMD as an object.

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Rod Adams
Date:
March 10, 2005 12:22
Subject:
Re: MMD as an object.
Message ID:
4230AC7C.1000800@rodadams.net
David Storrs wrote:

>On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:38:52PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
>
>  
>
>>There lingers the case of:
>>  
>>   use Foo; # from above, exports &bar is MMD::Random
>>
>>   multi sub bar {...}
>>
>>Does this generate an error, since one could expect this particular &bar 
>>to be Manhattan? Or does it assume Random, since there's already a &bar 
>>in existence? In my head, it currently makes sense to say that the new 
>>&bar inherits the Random policy. Only something like:
>>    
>>
>
>This seems like action-at-a-distance to me; I use some random module,
>define a couple of multis without realizing that they also exist in
>the module, and am baffled as to why I don't get the dispatch behavior
>I expect.
>  
>
Well, if you were not expecting Foo to export some &bar's, then you're 
in for a surprise regardless of dispatch when you call &bar in your code 
and one of Foo::bar gets called instead of one of yours, because it was 
a closer match.

I would say that people should know what they are getting into when they 
C< use > something. In Perl 6, that use could "conviently" swap the 
meanings of all the + and - signs, and not say a word. In my head, this 
extends to knowing what it exports, and if there's anything weird about it.

If I am consciously adding more multi's into something a package 
provided, to extend it's functionality, I would think that keeping the 
original dispatch system would make sense. Otherwise  the imported 
methods could fail to work properly.

-- Rod Adams



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