Re: RFC 193 (v1) Objects : Core support for method delegation

>>>>> "DC" == Damian Conway <[email protected]> writes:

  PRL> use Class::Delegation
  >> 
  >> shouldn't that be use delegation? i think you have a cut and paste
  >> error.

  DC> You're correct. Many thanks.
  DC> (That's what I get for pre-testing all the code in my RFCs! ;-)

heh, you should hire me to proofread your rfc's. just like the book. :-)
   
  >> will look up all current methods (maybe tagged?) from the class 'in' and
  >> handle that. then you don't have to update all the delegation calls each
  >> time the 'in' object changes.

  DC> Specifying C<in => []> does that. See the description of "catch-alls"
  DC> below the bit you've quoted.

ok, it was not clear to me that is how they are to be used. i would
expect catchall to be the main mode of use as you generally want to just
pass thtough to a HAS_A object all of its methods. only if you collide
with another HAS_A object (or with the parent object) would you have to
worry. and then you might just control the order or manually deal with
the method in question.

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  ---------  [email protected]  ----------  http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page  -----------  http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net  ----------  http://www.northernlight.com