On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 08:51:50PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: You will. But they won't be entries of a hash. They'll be
: separate variables and associated accessor methods.
: So maybe something like this:
:
: foreach my $attr (qw(foo bar baz))
: {
:print $attr:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Attributes are class-specific for a variable (okay, class instance
specific, if you do Evil Things with multiple copies of a single base
class in different legs of the inheritance tree and override the
default behaviour of the engine) and not queryable at runtime without
Luke Palmer wrote:
Could you just look through the lexical scope of the object?
for $this.MY.kv - $k, $v {
print $k: $v\n
}
Or would you look through the class's lexical scope and apply it to
the object?
for keys $this.class.MY {
print $_: $this.MY{$_}\n
}
I
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:16:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Basically anything you can potentially find in a symbol table or
lexical scratchpad will potentially be able to have a property
attached to it. The only way that we'll be able to reasonably
restrict (and optimize) the use of
Larry Wall wrote:
... I can see ways of binding properties
to a location without growing the location itself, but I think stuffing
a junction of ints into a single location is somewhat problematical.
We are still talking about native types - these with lowercase names in
the docs? Why
[Recipients list trimmed back to just the list - it was getting ridiculous.
So everyone will get only get one copy and it may take a tad longer to
get there . . .]
On 2002-11-07 at 17:07:46, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Attributes are class-specific for a variable (okay, class instance
specific, if
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:19:28 -0500
From: Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Julian-Day: 2452586.42675
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
[Recipients list trimmed back to just the list
On 2002-11-07 at 15:28:14, Luke Palmer wrote:
From: Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Will something like that not be possible in Perl6?
I'm afraid that statement is false for all values of something :)
Good point. Erratum: for possible,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:16:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:
:
: On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
:
: For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
:
:
: From A2 we have:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
Run-time properties really are associated with the object in question,
which implies some amount of overhead. For that
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
Run-time properties really are associated with the object in
question,
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
Run-time properties really are associated with the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:56:04PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
At 3:56 PM -0600 11/7/02, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
Every primitive type has an associated object type, whose name differs only
by capitalized first letter. A few posts back, Larry mentioned that perhaps
similar things should look different: this may be a good case to apply this
principle.
Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it loses
Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan;sidhe.org] wrote:
At 6:50 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it
loses all its run-time properties; and superpositions
will collapse.
What makes you think so, and are you really sure?
I was sure up until the
At 8:24 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
If I am wrong, then I am in need of enlightenment. What
is the difference between the primitive types and their
heavyweight partners? And which should I use in a typical
script?
The big difference is there's no way you can ever truly get a
primitive
David Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan;sidhe.org] wrote:
At 6:50 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it
loses all its run-time properties; and superpositions
will collapse.
What makes you think so, and are you really sure?
Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan;sidhe.org] wrote:
At 8:24 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
If I am wrong, then I am in need of enlightenment. What
is the difference between the primitive types and their
heavyweight partners? And which should I use in a typical
script?
The big difference is
I gotta admit that this issue is bugging me too. Larry mentions (in
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8selm=Pine.LNX.4.44.0210140927520.20533-10%40london.wall.org)
that all-uppercase is ugly and has boundary conditions.
Maybe it would be helpful to know what conditions are
20 matches
Mail list logo
