in reply to Re^3: No (ambiguous) Indirect Object Notation in Perl 6
in thread Tim O'Reilly on Perl

I believe constructors should be treated as a special case. Even though somewhere it says bless/ed is the only real constructor in Perl6 (it seems that way in Perl5 as well) for what we mean, for someone who wants a "shazam automagic gimme this object," the notion of a "free new" in this type of adjectival sort of syntax is what the typical object-oriented programmer expects. That Perl6 has currently settled upon using the colon is still too ugly and is as fastidious and ridiculous as saying 'CGI'::->new() in Perl5. Syntax should help elevate comprehension without making things *look* ugly, and I will try to advocate that when we mean an object we should type-treat it like one, which is exactly what the verb bless() does.
  • Comment on Re^4: No (ambiguous) Indirect Object Notation in Perl 6

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: No (ambiguous) Indirect Object Notation in Perl 6
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 16, 2011 at 04:34 UTC
    ... the notion of a "free new" in this type of adjectival sort of syntax is what the typical object-oriented programmer expects.

    I care less about cognates (false and otherwise) with other languages than I do the coherence and consistency of Perl 6. Why add a special form when it's possible to generalize and unify an entire class of syntax?

    That Perl 6 has currently settled upon using the colon is still too ugly...

    The designers of Smalltalk (and Objective C) might have been right, though.

    ... and is as fastidious and ridiculous as saying 'CGI'::->new() in Perl 5.

    Speaking of false cognates!