* David Mertens [2016-10-26 18:12]:
> Does anybody oppose me adding to code to top-level, lower-cased
> packages "int", "num", and "str"? What about top-level packages "Int",
> "UInt", "Str", or "Num"? Do other type systems use these top-level
> packages?
Yes. You would
YES!!! I didn't think this would work, but it does! It even works with
Exporter! Hooray!
OK, time to rewrite the package names for these once again. :-)
David
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Dan Book wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Mertens
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Mertens
wrote:
> @everybody,
>
> Does anybody oppose me adding to code to top-level, lower-cased packages
> "int", "num", and "str"? What about top-level packages "Int", "UInt",
> "Str", or "Num"? Do other type systems use these
@everybody,
Does anybody oppose me adding to code to top-level, lower-cased packages
"int", "num", and "str"? What about top-level packages "Int", "UInt",
"Str", or "Num"? Do other type systems use these top-level packages?
@Reini,
You always have good and useful ideas, but you always come
Hello everyone,
I am writing a keyword hook, C::Blocks. I have realized that my hook could
be made more powerful if I could indicate optional type information for
variables.
Question 1: Perl has support for declaring a variable's type, but it is
intended to be used with the fields pragma. I get