Indeed, I guess that this design decision could be a major obstacle for adoption of the new core OO. It is a consequence of the intended encapsulation of classes: Fields without accessors are private to the class, and different classes (and roles) in a class hierarchy can use the same field name without conflicts.
There have been lengthy discussions about allowing subclasses direct access with an explicit "opt-in" mechanism (similar to protected in Java), and I would love to see that. However, this will not happen in the first version of core OO.
In reply to Re^5: Thoughts on new 'class' OO in upcoming perl
by haj
in thread Thoughts on new 'class' OO in upcoming perl
by cavac
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |