Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I sent the appropriate patch to the webmaster, but it hasn't
been applied yet (and I lack a commit bit for the parrotcode.org site).
Once that's applied, the url should be fixed.
Thanks, applied. I also updated parrot.org.
Allison
Qui, 2008-09-18 às 18:11 +0200, TSa escreveu:
Shouldn't there be a warning in B that $!B::bar overwrites $!A::bar
without an accessor?
Actually, $!B::bar doesn't overwrite $!A::bar... the problem is simply
that $!A::bar is not visible from inside B, and therefore, there's
nothing to be
HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Qui, 2008-09-18 às 18:11 +0200, TSa escreveu:
Shouldn't there be a warning in B that $!B::bar overwrites $!A::bar
without an accessor?
Actually, $!B::bar doesn't overwrite $!A::bar... the problem is simply
that $!A::bar is not visible from inside B, and therefore,
Hi,
what should ''.split('') return? The empty list, or a list with one null
string?
Moritz
--
Moritz Lenz
http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ | http://perl-6.de/
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 05:58:59PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: Hi,
:
: what should ''.split('') return? The empty list, or a list with one null
: string?
Empty list would make more sense as a degenerate case. In
'a'.split('')
we don't return the null strings before or after 'a', just
Sex, 2008-09-19 às 17:49 +0200, TSa escreveu:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Qui, 2008-09-18 às 18:11 +0200, TSa escreveu:
Shouldn't there be a warning in B that $!B::bar overwrites $!A::bar
without an accessor?
Actually, $!B::bar doesn't overwrite $!A::bar... the problem is simply
that $!A::bar
Sex, 2008-09-19 às 17:49 +0200, TSa escreveu:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Qui, 2008-09-18 às 18:11 +0200, TSa escreveu:
Shouldn't there be a warning in B that $!B::bar overwrites $!A::bar
without an accessor?
Actually, $!B::bar doesn't overwrite $!A::bar... the problem is simply
that $!A::bar
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 05:58:59PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: Hi,
:
: what should ''.split('') return? The empty list, or a list with one null
: string?
Empty list would make more sense as a degenerate case. In
'a'.split('')
we don't return the null
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
TSa wrote:
May I pose three more questions?
1. I guess that even using $!A::bar in methods of B is an
access violation, right? I.e. A needs to trust B for that
to be allowed.
Yes
2. The object has to carry $!A::bar and $!B::bar separately, right?
Yes
3.
Jon Lang wrote:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
TSa wrote:
May I pose three more questions?
1. I guess that even using $!A::bar in methods of B is an
access violation, right? I.e. A needs to trust B for that
to be allowed.
Yes
2. The object has to carry $!A::bar and
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-vts-systems.de |Perl 6| wrote:
So again the question: are back refs from the value to the containers
required to implement Perl 6? I guess not.
If I understand what you are saying, I agree. You can only go from some
container to a value, not the opposite direction,
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-vts-systems.de |Perl 6| wrote:
class A
{
has $.foo = A;
has $!bar = A;
method blahh()
{
say $.foo ~ $!foo ~ $!bar;
}
}
class B is A
{
has $.foo = B;
has $!bar = B;
}
my $a = A.new;
my $b
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-vts-systems.de |Perl 6| wrote:
May I pose three more questions?
1. I guess that even using $!A::bar in methods of B is an
access violation, right? I.e. A needs to trust B for that
to be allowed.
Correct.
2. The object has to carry $!A::bar and $!B::bar
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
Note that this ought only be true of class inheritance; with role
composition, there should only be one $!bar in the class, no matter
how many roles define it.
er... what does that mean exactly?
Unless something has drastically changed since I last
14 matches
Mail list logo
