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

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 09:34:12AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Because, hopefully, there are efficiency gains to be had when perl
> *knows* that $self is a Dog. If it only makes the 'name' method call
> work faster then it's a good result. Admittedly 'bark' is a fairly
> simple function method with only one other method call, but in more
> complex methods one would expect efficiency gains.

Here, I think, is the primary reason for your email.  You want my Dog $spot
to retain it's optimizational (!) behaviour.  I'm proposing we put a
different meaning in place.  This doesn't mean the optimization goes away;
we can probably still do optimization in many of the cases you cite,
especially if $ME or self() get adopted.

I've tried to clear up the ambiguity that my Dog $spot still has an
optimizational meaning in v2 of the RFC; it doesn't, necessarily.  It means
"$spot is a Dog object, call the constructor and instantiate it as such".  I
would very much like to know how successful I was.


Michael "optimizational" Fowler
--
Administrator                      www.shoebox.net
Programmer, System Administrator   www.gallanttech.com
--