| [reply]
[d/l] |
Why should it have to "segregate", unless you have a busted inheritance hierarchy that doesn't actually represent ISA relationships?
That being said, if you want to prevent the method itself from being called on behalf of an object of a derived class, just call it a submethod instead, and then the derived class will have to define its own version of the submethod that will presumably refer to its own class attributes. I suspect that in general most class attributes are of interest only to infrastructural methods like constructors and initializers and destructors, and most of those should be submethods in the first place.
If a method ever has to ask what the actual type of its invocant it, it's usually a clue that something is seriously wrong in the design of either the program or the language. It's the dispatcher that should be making those kinds of decisions before your method is ever called. Perl 6 provides several degrees of freedom in the dispatcher to help you keep that sort of infrastructural spaghetti out of your methods.
Of course, we won't prevent you from examining the actual type of the invocant if you really want to...
| [reply] |
Why should it have to "segregate", unless you have a busted inheritance hierarchy that doesn't actually represent ISA relationships?
I was trying to think of a use for state. The potential use I thought of was counting instances of a class--Probably better served by a Class variable anyway--but it could be used that way until inheritance is involved at which point it gets iffy whether instances of the subclass are instances of the class. But forget that as there are better ways of doing it.
That leaves the question, what is a good use for state vars, which is probably the question Limbic~Region was asking in the first place.
My summation of the information you provided in this thread is that state vars are basically the same as closures, except that you can declare their scope from within the scope they are to be closed over, rather than having to declare them outside that scope in order for the sub(method/submethod) to close over them.
Is that a reasonable definition?
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
The "good enough" maybe good enough for the now, and perfection maybe unobtainable, but that should not preclude us from striving for perfection, when time, circumstance or desire allow.
| [reply] |