Austin Hastings wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Scott) writes:
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.
Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Joe Gottman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:
chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Piers Cawley wrote:
Why does it have to be a String, though? What prevents it from
working with anything that can stringify, besides the overly
restrictive signature? What if you could say (the Perl 6 equivalent
of):
sub print_it ( does Stringify $thingie )
{
From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
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
From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Piers Cawley wrote:
Why does it have to be a String, though? What prevents it from
working with anything that can stringify, besides the overly
restrictive signature? What if you could say (the Perl 6 equivalent
of):
sub
Sayeth the Summarizer:
Asked for pithy comments, chromatic gave good pith, noting that if he
'had a test case from everyone who asked When'll it be done and code
to pass a test case from everyone who said I'd like to help, but I
don't know where to start...' then he'd happily check
Austin Hastings wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Maybe as an alternative to
role Stringify {must stringify();}
sub print_it (Stringify $thingie) {print $thingie.stringify();}
you might be able to say
sub print_it ($thingie must stringify()) {
print
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 00:43, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Maybe as an alternative to
role Stringify {must stringify();}
sub print_it (Stringify $thingie) {print $thingie.stringify();}
you might be able to say
sub print_it ($thingie must stringify()) {print $thingie.stringify();}
11 matches
Mail list logo
