Re: new feature -> with()

Stut wrote: > It may not be clear to some people, but there are many things in the > every language that aren't necessarily obvious and I don't think that's > a reason not to implement something. I think that is one of the strongest reasons not to implement something actually. If there is a way to do something in a clear and concise syntax, adding an alternate less clear syntax that isn't immediately obvious to everyone simply obfuscates the language. The other fatal blow to a feature like this is that it would be quite a bit slower to compile and execute than the longer form because we now can't simply do a single hash lookup in the function table when we see a function. We first have to walk up the tree of objects to see if there is a method with this name, and if there is no method, then we assume it is a straight function call, unless of course there is a __call() method, then what? Way too many gotchas here. -Rasmus