Re: Mutator chaining considered harmful

I wrote about this too, in this node.

Comment on Re: Mutator chaining considered harmful

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Mutator chaining considered harmful by gaal (Parson) on Dec 29, 2004 at 07:31 UTC
Hmmm, much interesting discussion there. One salient note there is dws pointing out ~~SmallTalk~~ Smalltalk does this, but with special and unambiguous syntax++. Aristotle, would that be good enough? (IMHO yes, but how would we do that in Perl5?)	[reply]
•Re^3: Mutator chaining considered harmful by merlyn (Sage) on Dec 29, 2004 at 07:58 UTC
<pedant> That's "Smalltalk", not "SmallTalk". </pedant> -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.	[reply]
Re^4: Mutator chaining considered harmful by gaal (Parson) on Dec 29, 2004 at 09:19 UTC
Er, yes, that was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out!	[reply]
Re^3: Mutator chaining considered harmful by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 29, 2004 at 19:34 UTC
Absolutely it would. Currently I am salivating about TimToady's demonstration of how Perl6 will do that. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]

In Section Meditations