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 ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
-
Adrian Kuhn