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

Piers Cawley wrote:
> 
> > First off, I think everyone is reading this RFC with the wrong mindset,
> > forgetting the concept of embedded objects in Perl 6.
> 
> Ah, that dumb idea again.

Well, if you disagree with this idea, you probably won't agree with much
else I have to say on this subject. Just calling something "dumb" isn't
very productive, though. Maybe an explanation of *why* you think it's
"dump"? Who knows, you might convince me and all the other "loons" that
want vtable stuff in core...

> But you're creating the wrong bloody thing. And then you're throwing
> it away. Now that's what I call a win. In this scenario what will
> 
>    my Dog $spot;
>    print defined($spot)
> 
> return? If it's *not* 'undef' there'd better be a bloody good reason

This should definitely return undef.

> See that
> 
>     my Dog $patches = $dog_factory->make_me_a_dog
> 
> That's a factory method that is, returns a Dog of some sort, but you
> don't know of what breed.

Ok, then again I don't see what your problem with this RFC is.

Maybe Michael and I are on different wavelengths, so I don't want to
rewrite his RFC involuntarily through this discussion. *MY* take on
CREATE is that it's all taken care of for you, unless you override it,
in which case you can do special stuff. Increased flexibility, but
doesn't get in the way. Don't use it if you don't want to. Just like
DESTROY.

-Nate