Newsgroups: perl.perl6.language Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.perl.org Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact perl6-language-h...@perl.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list perl6-langu...@perl.org Received: (qmail 65288 invoked by uid 76); 20 Apr 2004 06:34:35 -0000 Received: from x1.develooper.com (HELO x1.develooper.com) (63.251.223.170) by onion.perl.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with SMTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:34:35 -0700 Received: (qmail 23883 invoked by uid 225); 20 Apr 2004 06:34:33 -0000 Delivered-To: perl6-langu...@perl.org Received: (qmail 23879 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2004 06:34:33 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=7.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK,RCVD_IN_SORBS X-Spam-Check-By: la.mx.develooper.com Received: from pimout1-ext.prodigy.net (HELO pimout1-ext.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.77) by la.mx.develooper.com (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:34:32 -0700 Received: from wall.org (adsl-64-172-47-53.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.172.47.53]) by pimout1-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3JNKmdU239622 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:20:48 -0400 Received: from london.wall.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by wall.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3JNKlbf029203 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:20:47 -0700 Received: (from larry@localhost) by london.wall.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3JNKlRV029201 for perl6-langu...@perl.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:20:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:20:47 -0700 To: Perl 6 Language Subject: Re: A12: default accessors and encapsulation Message-ID: <20040419232046.GB26857@wall.org> Mail-Followup-To: Perl 6 Language References: <041920042047.19015.40843AE60007FF9E00004A472200734076FF8D9E9898969DD19ED1948D9E@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Approved: n...@nntp.perl.org From: la...@wall.org (Larry Wall) On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 06:53:29PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: : Yeah, that's exactly what I don't want to type over and over :) I really don't understand what you're getting at here. First you complain that you'd rather write an ordinary method, and then you complain that you have to. Have I met someone lazier than me? :-) Larry