thoughtstream

I don’t wish to comment on the _principle_ of aliasing these names, just on their linguistic affordances. The proposal is: > ` use UNSAFE-FEATURES;` > ` use UNSAFE-FEATURE-TYPING;` > `...

Just a small linguistic point... I'd much prefer: ```perl @rep = deconstruct_object($obj); $obj = reconstruct_object(@rep); ``` Apart from the greater symmetry of _"deconstruct..."_ vs _"reconstruct..."_, I think it would be...

I'm planning a much _(much much)_ longer response to @leonerd's original question, with what I hope may be a clean and acceptable solution to the various issues raised in this...

Unsurprisingly, I have observations and comments on this issue. I apologize in advance for their extent. ;-) ## Some preliminary thoughts * `ADJUST` (and whatever mechanism is provided to pre-tweak...

> That being said, I'm not a fan of a proliferation of different ways of naming constructors. Yes, I think there's much to be said for avoiding the potential Babel...

@leonerd wrote: > I am slightly cautious about trying to add too much meaning > to the names of signature parameters. Caution is always a wise starting position. :-) >...

@ovid observed: > At the risk of being controversial by not being cautious, @leonerd has written > Syntax::Keyword::MultiSub which gives us multiple dispatch. There are a couple > of bugs...

@HaraldJoerg observed: > the only downside is that there's no declaration to show that `im` > is not available as a constructor attribute. Setting aside the crimes against Liskov Substitutability...

For whatever it's worth, my own view on these topics is very clear. 30+ years of writing and teaching OO has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that...

The point of encapsulation is to ensure that the state of an object cannot be changed by unrelated code. That’s why code that is outside the class (or, more precisely,...