chromatic at wgz.org
Fri Jan 19 05:34:51 GMT 2007
On Thursday 18 January 2007 06:24, David Cantrell wrote:
> You seem to be arguing that perl's OO is somehow defective because it
> fails to match the Holy Grail of Smalltalk. This is a bogus argument.
> Perl does not aim to be perfect. It aims to be useful.
Certainly I agree with your last two sentences. I merely meant that OO Perl
in practice would have been immensely better if someone who knew OO much
better had revised the documentation (and examples) much, much earlier.
(I also left out of my list the disastrous indirect method invocation
More information about the london.pm