Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor implicitly

Bart Lateur wrote:
> 
> First: I don't like the idea of some user supplied code being called
> whenever you declare a new variable, *unless* the author of the class
> created a sub *especially written* for this purpose.

Exactly.  Even then, the arguments must match.

So, if Dog::new() takes one argument, and has also been declared to
be the 'implicit constructor', then:

  my Dog $spot;

is a syntax error.

  my Dog $spot = 'hungry';

is allowed.

 
> Suppose all you want is a variable that can reference existing Dog
> objects, I definitely do not want that a new object that I don't need is
> created, every time I get to the declaration.
> 
> Do you really want:
> 
>         for (1..1000) {
>             my Dog $spot;
>         }
> 
> to create 10000 unused Dog objects? Ugh! (not "Ug")

Agree.  I think the RFC confuses the notion of object with the notion of
reference.

 
> But I agree that anything beyond that is simply horrible. You'll only
> drive more people *away* from OO, because it generates so horribly
> inefficient code. If you want a constructor called, than FGS *call* a
> constructor. Maybe you can reduce the syntax necessary to do that, but
> please don't do it behind our backs.

Agree.  Either learn from C++ or don't go this route.

Hildo