On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Carl Mäsak wrote:
# .ACCEPTS and .REJECTS on most everything -- provided by the Pattern role.
Likely a mistake to put one under each section, though. Perhaps put one
under Object and put a reference to S03.
What does Pattern? Should we have Object does Pattern?
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
Here's my comments on Carl Masak's S29 list. Note that some of the
things that say that they're now in something still need a lot of work.
# Range objects have .from, .to, .min, .max and .minmax methods
Now in S32/Containers.pod
# .contains on Hash
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Moritz Lenz wrote:
# Code has a .sig
Seems (from what I can tell) to be synonymous with .signature, so I
standardised on .signature.
This leads me to another question - afaict we also have .arity on the
code object, but shouldn't that be method on the .signature
Here's my comments on Carl Masak's S29 list. Note that some of the
things that say that they're now in something still need a lot of work.
# Range objects have .from, .to, .min, .max and .minmax methods
Now in S32/Containers.pod
# .contains on Hash and Array
Where's this from
On 2009-Feb-26, at 7:46 pm, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
# Object has .print and .say.
[...]
My question is, would we be better off having the string conversion
routine for arrays worry about the input/output record/field
separators, rather than the IO object? The downside I can see is
that
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, David Green wrote:
On 2009-Feb-26, at 7:46 pm, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
# Object has .print and .say.
[...]
My question is, would we be better off having the string conversion routine
for arrays worry about the input/output record/field separators, rather
than the IO
