Re: Sanity checking for namespace and other abuses

2016-10-27 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* 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

Re: Sanity checking for namespace and other abuses

2016-10-26 Thread David Mertens
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

Re: Sanity checking for namespace and other abuses

2016-10-26 Thread Dan Book
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

Re: Sanity checking for namespace and other abuses

2016-10-26 Thread David Mertens
@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

Sanity checking for namespace and other abuses

2016-10-26 Thread David Mertens
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