HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
The purpose is that we don't have to be strong typists to enjoy Strong
Typing. To make Perl6 easier to type, and easier to Type.
Great! You, if not solve, but at least aim at relieving the pain caused
by the 'proliferation of type parameters' problem. Consider me
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:25:26AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
Anyone done any work on parsing Java interface definitions?
And, ideally, translating them into roughly equivalent Perl 6?
I wrote something that did this with Parse::RecDescent. Unfortunately,
I don't own the code.
For my purposes I
Hi,
What's the current meaning of type annotations on type-variables?
For example, if I say...
my Foo ::x;
...which of these does it mean?
a) ::x (=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
b) ::x is an object of type Foo, where Foo.does(Class)
c) Something else?
I
On 11/08/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll have to think about the rest of your proposal, but I was suddenly
struck with the thought that our platonic Class objects are really
forms of undef:
say defined IO; # prints 0
That is, we already have an object of type IO that
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:02:00PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
What's the current meaning of type annotations on type-variables?
For example, if I say...
my Foo ::x;
...which of these does it mean?
a) ::x (=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
b) ::x is
Stuart Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/08/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll have to think about the rest of your proposal, but I was suddenly
struck with the thought that our platonic Class objects are really
forms of undef:
say defined IO; # prints 0
That is, we
On 11/08/05, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One that you missed was that this syntax:
my Dog $spot .=new();
Falls out of it quite naturally.
Actually I tried to mention that indirectly, but I'm glad you
explicitly mentioned it.
On the other hand, there are other
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:02:00PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
my Foo ::x;
a) ::x (=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
b) ::x is an object of type Foo, where Foo.does(Class)
c) Something else?
My current reading is a) -- but only if
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:53:47PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
On 11/08/05, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One that you missed was that this syntax:
my Dog $spot .=new();
Falls out of it quite naturally.
Actually I tried to mention that indirectly, but I'm glad
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
What about this?
OK, let's play some manual type inferencing ;)
my $spot = Dog;
$spot.does(Item of Dog), that means what ever the name Dog represents
was stored or bound to $spot.
defined($spot); # false!?
true! Even for my $spot = ::Dog
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:47:49PM +0200, TSa wrote:
OK, let's play some manual type inferencing ;)
Note that $spot here is intended to be dynamic typed, i.e. not subject
to inference. :-)
my $spot = Dog;
$spot.does(Item of Dog), that means what ever the name Dog represents
was stored
HaloO,
Stuart Cook wrote:
On the other hand, there are other things that don't work quite so well:
my Dog $spot;
$spot.can('bark');# Not until he's instantiated...
Are you objecting to the fact that it can't possibly return a valid
method, or that it will inappropriately true/false
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:47:35AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Really this is about path of least resistance. Without inference,
: we are asking the user to choose between:
:
: 1) Verbose annotation and type safety
: 2) Convenience (no annotation) and unsafe behaviour
:
: Adding
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:47:49PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: defined($spot); # false!?
:
: true! Even for my $spot = ::Dog because when my is evaluated the
: name ::Dog has be be bound, AUTOLOADED or by whatever means become
: available.
What does binding have to do with definedness? In Perl 6
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:22:27AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:47:35AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Adding inference (is typed) to the mix massively sweetens the first
: option, which would be a good thing.
Only if the programmer can be taught to understand the
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:41:17PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: If yes, what does it desugar to?
:
: my $pi is constant := 3;
: my $pi is constant ::= 3;
In this case it desugars to
my $pi is constant = 3;
:-)
However, I wonder if the intention was to replace the Perl 5
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 01:43:43AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:41:17PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: : If yes, what does it desugar to?
: :
: : my $pi is constant := 3;
: : my $pi is constant ::= 3;
:
: In this case it desugars to
:
: my $pi is
On 8/11/05, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:02:00PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
my Foo ::x;
a) ::x (=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
b) ::x is an object of type Foo, where Foo.does(Class)
c) Something
On 8/10/05, Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 21:00 -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
Will there be an operator for symmetric difference? I nominate (^).
That makes sense, although bear in mind that the existing Set module for
Perl 6, and the Set::Scalar and Set::Object
On 8/10/05, Flavio S. Glock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if infinite sets (recurrences) will be supported - then I'll
move all(ext/Recurrence, ext/Span, ext/Set-Infinite) to
Perl6::Container::Set::Ordered - cool.
Note there is now a Set role. Emphasis on role. There will be a
finite
On 8/10/05, Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[changing the subject line for the benefit of the summarizer ...]
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
And now some people will begin to wonder how ugly set values will look.
We should also tell them that lists (and possibly
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/10/05, Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[changing the subject line for the benefit of the summarizer ...]
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
And now some people will begin to wonder how ugly set values will look.
We should also tell them that lists (and
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/10/05, Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[changing the subject line for the benefit of the summarizer ...]
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
And now some people will begin to wonder how ugly set values will look.
We should also tell
On 8/11/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So either we have to bifurcate the concept into temporarily constant
and permanently constant, or we force people to distinguish with ::=
(or is constant('foo')), or we make some representations about the
requirement for the compiler to optimize
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:25:23PM -0700, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
: Mark A. Biggar wrote:
: Small issue, what comparison operator do you use to determine
: duplicates? For example (possibly pathological case):
:
: (undef but true) (+) (undef but false)
:
: Actually, I'm going to make a stab at
25 matches
Mail list logo
