$elf does Thief; # hmm ... that reads funny
Maybe that's because when we coudn't divorce the person from their actions, naming a (sub)class Thief made sense, but now we can have groups of actions that can be enacted by a range of People, maybe we should name such groups by the collective term for those actions:
my Elf $elf does Thieving;
And
my $indivual is Employee has HomeAddress, TelephoneNo, ParkingSpace does Program, Manage, FirstAid;
I wonder if P6 will allow lists to does, is, has and the like? It would certainly make the syntax more friendly.
Reads quite nicely, and seems quite intuative that if the employee gives up first aiding, removing that Role has little impact on the rest of his persona. Maybe:
$individual stops FirstAiding;
Then that dear old Elf from earlier sees the light and repents:
$elf stops Thieving;
Of course, it doesn't flow completely right. There would be no point in:
$indivual does Thieving;
Unless the compiler has the smarts to turn that into:
$individual isn't Employee;
:)
In reply to Re: Solving compositional problems with Perl 6 roles
by BrowserUk
in thread Solving compositional problems with Perl 6 roles
by Ovid
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |