From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@...>
Date: 2006-06-15T16:29:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?

ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> here's my complaint against any non-module based solution: it wildly 
> violates
> POLS due to the change in scoping.  i'm not saying it can't be done, but 
> read
> over these tests/demos carefully and you'll see it's not quite as
> straightforward as you're suggesting - espcially if you want 'normal' class
> method definition semantics.

I'm not saying it'll be easy, but I do think it's possible to use 
anonymous modules. I'll see if I can find time today to further develop 
the existing implementation. There'll be flaws at first, of course, but 
if we could avoid the whole "in your face" mentality I think has sprung 
up a bit in this thread, I'm sure we'll prevail, as George junior 
would've said :)


Daniel