Uri Guttman wrote:
i say we just sell them a license to use the US constitution.
Bill Gates wrote:
What is it with these Linux guys?
i say we just sell them a license to use Windoze.
:-)
A
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
PS: While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that eu guys are trying to
spin up 200 years worth of amendments and supreme court decisions at the
same time, it's still a ratf*ck. Eu need to get eurselves a Larry.
Just
- Original Message -
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:51 AM
Subject: [perl] Re: Roles and Mix-ins?
David Storrs writes:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 11:12:31AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:57:17AM
Joe Gottman writes:
- Original Message -
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:51 AM
Subject: [perl] Re: Roles and Mix-ins?
David Storrs writes:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 11:12:31AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat,
Joe Gottman wrote:
How about something like
class Trog
does Dog {bark=dogBark} does Tree {bark=treeBark}
{...}
Then we could have code like
my Trog $foo = Trog.new();
my Dog $spot := $foo;
my Tree $willow := $foo;
$spot.bark(); #
Luke Palmer wrote:
Renaming methods defeats the purpose of roles. Roles are like
interfaces inside-out. They guarantee a set of methods -- an interface
-- except they provide the implementation to (in terms of other,
required methods). Renaming the method destroys the interface
- Original Message -
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Joe Gottman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Perl6 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:34 PM
Subject: [perl] Re: Roles and Mix-ins?
Joe Gottman writes:
- Original Message -
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL
From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Luke Palmer wrote:
Renaming methods defeats the purpose of roles. Roles are like
interfaces inside-out. They guarantee a set of methods -- an interface
-- except they provide the implementation to (in terms of other,
required methods).
Joe Gottman wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
Your renaming can be done easily enough, and more clearly (IMO) with:
class Trog
does Dog does Tree {
method bark() { ... } # Explicitly remove the provided method
method dogBark() { .Dog::bark() }
method treeBark() {
Austin Hastings wrote:
There's two ways to look at that. One way is to say: I'm going to
define an interface as being this OTHER thing minus a method. That
seems like a positive construction, and supporting it might be
desirable.
The other way is to say: Nobody knows what methods call
From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings wrote:
There's two ways to look at that. One way is to say: I'm going to
define an interface as being this OTHER thing minus a method. That
seems like a positive construction, and supporting it might be
desirable.
The
Larry, chromatic, Allison, Damian, et al:
What's the big fascination with traits?
I read the paper, and at the end where they talked about refactoring the
Smalltalk class library, they managed to claim 12% fewer lines of code:
In total, these classes use 46 different traits and implement 509
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 22:26, Austin Hastings wrote:
So on the grand balance of utility, what are the metrics that traits are
supposed to help improve?
Two big ones:
- naming collections of behavior that are too fine-grained to fit into
classes cleanly
- enabling finer-grained
13 matches
Mail list logo
