Re: RFC 265 (v1) Interface polymorphism considered lovely

   > > 	* There's also no need to distinguish C<use base> and C<use interface>,
   > > 	  since you've previously distinguished them by keyword. I would
   > > 	  suggest that either C<use base> be used for both types of
   > > 	  inheritance, or else the definition of an interface specification
   > > 	  just be a regular C<package>.
   > 
   > I dunno. I like the Javaesque distinction between a class *being* a
   > Dog and *implementing* Fetcher. Sure it's syntactic sugar, but I think
   > it's good sugar.

Okay. I don't have a problem with a small amount of "belt-and-braces".


   > >    * The C<use deferred> pragma seems unnecessary, as it is sufficient
   > >      to *declare* the autoloaded method, rather than *define* it.
   > >      That is:
   > > 
   > >                 use deferred 'rollover';
   > > 
   > >      is really just:
   > > 
   > >                 sub rollover;
   > > 
   > >      BTW, this trick already works in Perl 5 (for making C<can>
   > >      acknowledge autoloaded methods).
   > 
   > Hmm... point taken. Though I do think C<use deferred> could be looked
   > upon as a vaguely nice bit of syntactic sugar...

Too much sugar rots your teeth. ;-)

I think C<use deferred> falls into that category, given that there's
already an easier way to do it in the existing language.

Damian