As I am building the metamodel, I had a question, I did not find anything specifically in the docs regarding this.
What should I do when I encounter two attributes which can peacefully co-exist as attributes, but cause a class when we autogenerate the accessors for them. Here is a quick example:
class Foo { has @.bar; has $.bar;
}
Should $.bar win out because it is defined last? Or would @.bar win because it would create the accessor first, then when an attempt to create the accessor for $.bar is made, it will see an entry for bar() already in the class, and so not generate one (as that is the default behavior when a user-created bar() is made)?
Should we enforce something along the lines of method conflict in roles? So that any conflicts for autogenerated accessor methods will result in neither of them being generated and therefore force the user to disambiguate manually?
On some level this might be able to be handled with MMD, and call context detection, but I think that might actually make things far more confusing than they actually need to be, but that is just MHO. Especially since it would create difficulties when something like this is encountered.
class Foo { has @.bar; has $.bar;
# the autogenerated mutli method accessors # multi method bar(Array @value) returns Array; # multi method bar(Scalar $value) returns Scalar;
method bar () {...}
}
Unless of course we use Yuval's "everything is a MMD under the hood" idea. But that is another thread entirely.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:26:31PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: What should I do when I encounter two attributes which can peacefully co-exist as : attributes, but cause a class when we autogenerate the accessors for them. Here is a : quick example: : : class Foo { : has @.bar; : has $.bar; : }
Probably for now we should do the conservative thing and carp as soon as we notice it, much like for role method conflicts. We could relax that later if we find a decent way to disambiguate, but I don't think there will be great demand for it. In any event, as with role conflicts, if they write their own method, it overrides both of them anyway and they can figure it out them own selves. If we pretend attribute declarations are anonymous role declarations, they might turn out to be just that, especially if we decide it's a useful conceit.
> If we pretend attribute declarations are anonymous role declarations, > they might > turn out to be just that, especially if we decide it's a useful > conceit.
This exact thing occurred to me as I was sitting in traffic on the way back from $work. I think it probably makes the most sense to do it this way. We can always change it later if it proves to be too restrictive.
|
