On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:44 +0200, Stéphane Payrard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:17:14AM -, David Formosa (aka ? the
Platypus) wrote:
[...]
I would prefur this to be written.
use strict types;
I suspect there will be many ways to do types
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:25:10AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Currently, does this:
:
: sub foo (::T $x, ::T $y) { }
:
: and this:
:
: sub foo (T $x, T $y) { }
:
: Means the same thing, namely
:
:a) if the package T is defined in scope, use that as the
: type constraint
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:51:55AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: So either we need a different sigil for type variables, or a syntax
: for explitly binding and declaring an autovivified type. (Which,
: interestingly, could also be used in rvalue context.)
I neglected to provide an example of this,
Perhaps type parameters to roles could also be written in (T) notation:
role Tree[(Returns)] {...}
but that would imply the parameter name is Returns rather than
returns. Maybe that's okay, since it's usually a positional
parameter or a special of form anyway.
Larry
Once upon a time I said:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/perl.dbi.users/msg/caf189d7b404a003?dmode=sourcehl=en
and wrote
http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI/Roadmap.pod
which yielded:
https://donate.perlfoundation.org/index.pl?node=Fund+Drive+Detailsselfund=102
(A little over $500 of
