Re: RFC 171 (v1) my Dog $spot should call a constructor implicitly

On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:06:16PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> I don't see why this needs to be... either:
> 1) We clearly define in the beginning that if "Dog" is a basic type, then
> this has semi-magical properties.
> 2) We clearly define that basic types will always m/^[A-Z]+$/.

Or if clearly make basic types look *very* different from user-defined
types:

	my Dog $spot;
	my *int $i;		# types that start with * are "basic"

> (It also makes it so that all-uppercase
> module names without any colons might behave oddly.  This is bad for CGI,
> but if it becomes WWW::CGI, then it's all OK...)

I don't like this at all.

-Scott
-- 
Jonathan Scott Duff
[email protected]