Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

I feel like you're focusing on the wrong thing somehow. The issue is not that what nqp is doing is somehow wrong. The issue is that the thing it is doing is necessarily an implementation detail, and as such should be isolated from the language level and any failures/errors exposed as language

Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

I guess I wasn't clear in what I was asking: What, exactly, was it that NQP was doing? What were the inputs and what was the behavior that you observed? So far, all I have to go on is one example that you feel is not illustrating the broken behavior of NQP that you want to work around with a

Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Jon Lang wrote: > So what is the assuming method, and why is it in a callable role? What was > the logic behind that decision? It's perfectly sensible: it's how you implement partial application (which as sadly usual is mis-called

Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

So what is the assuming method, and why is it in a callable role? What was the logic behind that decision? On Nov 14, 2016 1:38 PM, "Brandon Allbery" wrote: > This should probably have been cc-d to the list. > > Callable claims to be the thing we want. What it actually is,

Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

This should probably have been cc-d to the list. Callable claims to be the thing we want. What it actually is, is a mix-in that adds the assuming method. I am not sure these can be conflated. Note that the current docs actually do claim it is what I want. This is because I first brought this up

Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote: > So, you said that the problem arises because NQP does something > non-obvious that results in this error. Can you be clear on what that > non-obvious behavior is? It sounds to me like you're addressing a symptom > of a

Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

So, you said that the problem arises because NQP does something non-obvious that results in this error. Can you be clear on what that non-obvious behavior is? It sounds to me like you're addressing a symptom of a systemic issue. Aaron Sherman, M.: P: 617-440-4332 Google Talk, Email and Google

Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

Fair points, all. I do think, though that if the concern is really with "the 4 cases when nqp hauls a CALL-ME out of its bowels" then that's what should be addressed... Aaron Sherman, M.: P: 617-440-4332 Google Talk, Email and Google Plus: a...@ajs.com Toolsmith, developer, gamer and life-long

Re: CALL-ME vs. Callable

Also... On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote: > Role-based testing seems very perl6ish. I'd suggest the role name be > "Invocable" with much the sort of signature as you've described. If it's Invokable then the method should probably be INVOKE. It still leaves