Re: RFC 159 (v1) True Polymorphic Objects

Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> 
> >    Operator Overloading
> >    -------------------------------------------------
> >    PLUS             Called in + context
> >    MINUS            Called in - context
> >    TIMES            Called in * context
> >    DIVIDED          Called in / context
> >    MODULUS          Called in % context
> 
> How about ye olde ADD, SUB, MUL, DIV, and MOD?

Yeah, these are good. They're the "wrong tense", but they are all the
same length, which is a plus.

> I continue to think that stealing names from the programmer is a bad
> thing.  That's what RFC59 is all about.  If we're going to use allcaps
> subroutines to mean something special to perl I think we should make
> it an error for the programmer to use them. 

Actually, I think this is a pretty good idea. At least a warning similar
to what Perl 4 had for barewords:

   ALLCAPS sub name may conflict with future reserved word at line 3.

Although it'll probably make the Perl 5 purists cringe. :-) 

I never define my own methods in ALLCAPS just so they're not confused
with perl builtins. In fact, I generally don't define anything in
ALLCAPS for this reason. I usually use a leading _ for main variables or
private methods.

Enforcing "style" on users (prohibiting ALLCAPS) is probably gonna be a
tough sell. But I think a warning like the above would be almost a
necessity, especially since it looks like we're going to have 50+
ALLCAPS methods predefined in Perl 6 at least.

-Nate