Please review the following, if you will:

package TestAnonBefore;
use 5.008;
use strict;
use warnings;

use PerlPlusPlus (__PACKAGE__); # ,instance =>'$self');

# $priv_ is optional, $priv_foo is private and will have a private get
+ter/setter for this package only
# $priv_foo can also be accessed as '$priv_foo'
#
# $pub_bar is public and will have a public $self->bar getter/setter
#
# $prot_baz is protected and will have a $self->bar getter/setter only
+ for subclasses
#

my($self,$priv_foo,$pub_bar,$prot_baz);
# my($self); # can declare $self separately

# When sub matches package name, it is constructor
# implicit access to $self
sub TestAnonBefore {
    ($pub_bar)=@_; # that's it...
}
               
# public instance method, not a getter/setter
# getters/setters are generated automatically based on scope (private,
+protected,public)
sub do_stuff : PUBLIC {
    $self->do_private;
    'Private: ' . $self->foo . ' Public: ' . $self->bar . ' Protected:
+ ' . $self->baz;
    # is equivalent to:
    'Private: ' . $priv_foo . ' Public: ' . $pub_bar . ' Protected: ' 
+. $prot_baz;
}

# sub do_private :Private {
sub do_private : PRIVATE {
     $priv_foo++;
}

sub stuff{ # same as PUBLIC
    print "123\n";
}

# done declaring a class with PerlPlusPlus
no PerlPlusPlus;

1;
[download]

Looks familiar to some, and utterly alien to others. What I'm wondering is, is this even a good idea? If someone were to implement a superset of Perl that would obviate the need for

my($self)=@_;

would anyone like/use it? If so, is the preceeding acceptable? What changes would YOU make?? Thanks!

2006-04-08 Retitled by planetscape, as per Monastery guidelines
Original title: 'PerlPlusPlus'