Re^2: Calling Madness

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^2: Calling Madness by rir (Vicar) on Sep 15, 2002 at 20:38 UTC
As Aristotle says, `ref $_[0] eq "PKG"` will break inheritance. I think that illustrates a serious problem with the concept. I took the stance that: `Class::derived( $not_blessed);` should do the same as: `$class->derived( $not_blessed);` and decided that inheritance was not allowed because the first form was desired. If allowing naive users to use the various calling conventions was the idea, and why else, I thought this was the clear choice. The following, and more, need to be considered: `Class::derived( $class_obj); # Jack Class::derived( Class $not_blessed); # Queen Class->derived( $not_blessed); # King $class_obj->derived( $not_blessed); # Ace Class::derived( "Class", $not_blessed); # Joker` [download] The last is the joker. How will you distinguish between the Joker and the Queen? And what about Jack? Is that the same as: `$class_obj->derived;` or the same as: `$class_obj->derived( $class_obj);`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Calling Madness by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Sep 15, 2002 at 21:12 UTC
`Class::derived($class_obj)` is the same as `$class_obj->derived()` except it disables late binding. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re^4: Calling Madness by rir (Vicar) on Sep 16, 2002 at 00:09 UTC
`Class::derived($class_obj)` is the same as `$class_obj->derived()` except it disables late binding. Right. I am suitably rebuked. I didn't mean that they were the same. But that when someone tries to make the differing call invocations the same to warp the language, the apparently correct semantics change.	[reply] [d/l] [select]