3 Sep
2007
3 Sep
'07
10:34 a.m.
You are right.
On 3 Sep 2007, at 10:24 , Oscar Nierstrasz wrote:
Aren't these emails supposed to be going to the moose-dev list?
They are all being sent to scg-staff now.
Oscar
On Sep 3, 2007, at 10:10, Bergel, Alexandre wrote:
>> Why touch the compiler, when two simple methods in Object can do
>> the same?
>
> If WideClass is just an optimisation, then I should write my code
> as if this mechanism is not present. Moreover, using a kind of
> annotation mechanism will make legacy code to benefit from WideClass.
>
>>
>> Also, when lazy inst vars are part of the class def, again we run
>> into the limitation that they can not be a package extension.
>> This is one of the needs we do have in Moose.
>
> As far as I understand, an ideal implementation of WC will have to
> be in the VM. And this, for the same reason that lazy evaluation
> in Haskel is implemented in the VM.
>
> Alexandre
>
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>