Update: don’t miss xdg’s reply, which addresses the issue.
This is an off-the-cuff note that started out as a reply to xdg in Re^2: Slides from NY Inside-Out Talk, where he writes:
I’m pretty indifferent, personally, on advisory versus enforced encapsulation.
I’m not: advisory is better. Being unable to do nasty things necessarily means you also cannot do powerful things. The primary value brought to the table by inside-out objects for me is that subclasses cannot accidentally break encapsulation. I would prefer if they could, iff they so chose; then the OO in Perl 5 would be on par with Ruby.
So far, the choices are:
Notably absent, however:
Makeshifts last the longest.
In reply to OO in Perl 5: still inadequate by Aristotle
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |