John Siracusa wrote:
I'd either like a way to more cleanly extend the default accessor's
assignment behavior down the road (i.e. by just writing a new name() method,
not by hacking away at STORE traits and adding private worker subs) or a way
to auto-generate the slightly more boring default
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
I'm saying division is now defined such that when the numerator is
a hash(-ref), the result is the set of values associated with the
denominator. I've never tried to divide a hash or hashref by
something without it being a bug.
Right...in Perl 5.
In Perl 6, a hash in a
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:44:53PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: On 4/19/04 1:30 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:14:57PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: : I know we are running out of special characters, but I really, really think
: : that required named parameters are a
John Siracusa asked:
Well, actually, we saved you last summer when we decided to make +
mean that the parameter must be named.
...named and required, or named and optional?
Named and optional, by default.
IOW, is this all true?
sub foo(+$a, +$b) { ... }
foo(); # compile-time
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 06:53:29PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: Yeah, that's exactly what I don't want to type over and over :)
I really don't understand what you're getting at here. First you
complain that you'd rather write an ordinary method, and then you
complain that you have to. Have I
Apocalypse 12 was very clear about the difference between private and
public class members, but it didn't say anything about protected ones? How
can you define a protected member? Do you have to do the following?
has $.foo is protected;
method bar() is protected;
Maybe we could
Since this horse came back to life, I'm going to give it a good thrashing, and
I've got goons to help me.
I've asked the Phoenix Perl Mongers for their take on the situation. I've posted
a _completely_ unbiased synopsis of the situation. Here are excerpts from the replies:
Tony's take:
Rename
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 08:21:58PM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
:Apocalypse 12 was very clear about the difference between private and
: public class members, but it didn't say anything about protected ones? How
: can you define a protected member?
You can't. The concept of protected does not
On 4/19/04 7:20 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 06:53:29PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: Yeah, that's exactly what I don't want to type over and over :)
I really don't understand what you're getting at here. First you
complain that you'd rather write an ordinary method, and
On 4/19/04 9:05 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
You want:
sub foo(+$a is required, +$b is required) { ... }
Yes, that would be just fine :)
-John
On 4/19/04 10:04 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
John Siracusa wrote:
I'd either like a way to more cleanly extend the default accessor's
assignment behavior down the road (i.e. by just writing a new name() method,
not by hacking away at STORE traits and adding private worker subs) or a way
to
On 4/20/04 1:25 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
John Siracusa writes:
The will STORE stuff covers the easy cases, but can I extend it all the
way up to a name() that's a multimethod with a ton of optional args? I
supposed you can (technically) do all of that with will STORE, but it
seems an odd place
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:45:48 +0200, Juerd wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-04-16 15:51 (-0500):
Except that you've put things in this explanation that shouldn't be
there IMHO. The %varnamekey is a special case, but not of getting a
single item from a hash, rather it's a special case
Let me just chime in with my support for John's basic idea. I would
definitely prefer that it be easy to arrange things such that
$obj.foo = 'bar'
winds up invoking a method on $obj with 'bar' as an argument, rather
than invoking a method on $obj that returns an lvalue to which
'bar' is
At 9:50 AM -0400 4/20/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/19/04 7:16 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, no, we're still stuck at run-time validation of that. In the case
of methods you can't really do anything else anyway, generally speaking.
Why is that?
Because at compile time all you have is a generic
On 4/20/04 10:42 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:50 AM -0400 4/20/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/19/04 7:16 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, no, we're still stuck at run-time validation of that. In the case
of methods you can't really do anything else anyway, generally speaking.
Why is that?
At 10:51 AM -0400 4/20/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/20/04 10:42 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:50 AM -0400 4/20/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/19/04 7:16 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, no, we're still stuck at run-time validation of that. In the case
of methods you can't really do anything else
Peter Haworth skribis 2004-04-20 14:56 (+0100):
I think %hashkey key key is best explained as %hash{ key key
key } with implicit curlies, not as an alternative to curlies.
In that case, why aren't you suggesting something more in line with that?
Here's what I'd like to see instead of your
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Let me just chime in with my support for John's basic idea. I would
definitely prefer that it be easy to arrange things such that
$obj.foo = 'bar'
winds up invoking a method on $obj with 'bar' as an argument, rather
than invoking a method on $obj that returns an lvalue to
-Original Message-
From: Mark J. Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let me just chime in with my support for John's basic idea. I would
definitely prefer that it be easy to arrange things such that
$obj.foo = 'bar'
winds up invoking a method on $obj with 'bar' as an argument,
One of the things that got a little less clear with A12 was the idea of
multiple Cis clauses.
Once upon a time, we talked about:
my $spot is Dog is const is persistent is ...;
Obviously some of those are traits, now. However, I'm wondering how to
handle things like my recent suggestion of a
Mark J. Reed writes:
Let me just chime in with my support for John's basic idea. I would
definitely prefer that it be easy to arrange things such that
$obj.foo = 'bar'
winds up invoking a method on $obj with 'bar' as an argument, rather
than invoking a method on $obj that returns
Austin Hastings writes:
One of the things that got a little less clear with A12 was the idea of
multiple Cis clauses.
Once upon a time, we talked about:
my $spot is Dog is const is persistent is ...;
Obviously some of those are traits, now. However, I'm wondering how to
handle things
Juerd writes:
Peter Haworth skribis 2004-04-20 14:56 (+0100):
I think %hashkey key key is best explained as %hash{ key key
key } with implicit curlies, not as an alternative to curlies.
In that case, why aren't you suggesting something more in line with that?
Here's what I'd like to
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
There. Now here's the important part: in order to *use* all this, you
import whatever module defines it, and then say:
class Dog {
method foo (?$arg) is accessor {
# accessor code here
}
}
If that's not easy
John Williams writes:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
There. Now here's the important part: in order to *use* all this, you
import whatever module defines it, and then say:
class Dog {
method foo (?$arg) is accessor {
# accessor code here
}
On 2004-04-20 at 10:51:47, Luke Palmer wrote:
I guess I bogged down that message with the implementation, so the
result may have been easy to miss.
That is what happened in my case. Apologies; it looks like your
original solution would do the job nicely. As long as the requisite
module comes
On 4/20/04 12:14 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Okay, well, I thought that my example did that, but apparently using
Cwill get and Cwill set is a little too complex... (my sentiments
are beginning to follow Larry's, in that I'm not sure you know what you
want -- perhaps you could give a hypotheical
Okay, let's put this one to rest. I've suspended judgement long enough.
Let me first say that I have my own personal biases, and they are
towards keeping things visually and psychologically distinctive,
rather than towards reducing keystrokes. (Though I have enough
arthritis in my hands to at
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
John Williams writes:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
There. Now here's the important part: in order to *use* all this, you
import whatever module defines it, and then say:
class Dog {
method foo (?$arg) is accessor {
Well, I have a lot to digest, but off the top of my head (and having
nothing to do with objects, but rather the string discussion at the
end), it would be very useful if I could assert:
no string complex;
or something like that. That is to say, I would love to have a way to
say that my
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:15:24PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: With that has line alone, you auto-magically get an accessor that works
: like this:
:
: $obj.foo# get value of $.foo
: $obj.foo(5) # set $.foo = 5
I don't care what syntactic sugar you put underneath, but if you expose
On 4/20/04 2:37 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:15:24PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: With that has line alone, you auto-magically get an accessor that works
: like this:
:
: $obj.foo# get value of $.foo
: $obj.foo(5) # set $.foo = 5
I don't care what
On 2004-04-20 at 11:37:18, Larry Wall wrote:
So do whatever you like to the declarations, but make sure you preserve
the symmetry and extensibility of
$obj.foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], *%NONSENSE) # get value of $.foo
$obj.foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], *%NONSENSE) = 5 # set $.foo
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 15:40, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/20/04 2:37 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
It's wrong to introduce a fundamental asymmetry that breaks the contract that
an accessor can be used as a variable.
Er, I think we have different definitions of accessor. I'm perfectly
happy to never
John Williams wrote:
class Dog {
has $.foo
will FETCH { ... }
will STORE { ... }
;
}
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but John Siracusa is
asking for something different, I think. A simple accessor which looks
like a method without
On 4/20/04 4:08 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 15:40, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/20/04 2:37 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
It's wrong to introduce a fundamental asymmetry that breaks the contract
that an accessor can be used as a variable.
Er, I think we have different definitions of
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon skribis 2004-04-20 12:58 (-0700):
method buffersize()
will store {
my $sqrt=$^v.sqrt;
die $^v is not a power of two unless int($sqrt) == $sqrt;
$.buffer = \x[0] x $^v;
}
{ +$.buffer.bytes }
Could this be
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
John Williams wrote:
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but John Siracusa is
asking for something different, I think. A simple accessor which looks
like a method without having to play with Proxy, FETCH, STORE, etc.
If
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 13:55, Larry Wall wrote:
Okay, let's put this one to rest.
Good, and I'll not try to speak ill of the dead thread, so ignoring hash
and/or array access, let me respond to the end of your message.
As for Cqx//, it probably needs to be completely rethought anyway,
along
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Juerd wrote:
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon skribis 2004-04-20 12:58 (-0700):
method buffersize()
will store {
my $sqrt=$^v.sqrt;
die $^v is not a power of two unless int($sqrt) == $sqrt;
$.buffer = \x[0] x $^v;
}
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:25:04PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon skribis 2004-04-20 12:58 (-0700):
method buffersize()
will store {
my $sqrt=$^v.sqrt;
die $^v is not a power of two unless int($sqrt) == $sqrt;
$.buffer =
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:16:01PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Well, I have a lot to digest, but off the top of my head (and having
: nothing to do with objects, but rather the string discussion at the
: end), it would be very useful if I could assert:
:
: no string complex;
:
: or
43 matches
Mail list logo
