>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or are you worried that these have to be declared at all? I think > we need to declare them or we can't use them as bare identifiers. > There are no barewords in Perl 6, so they have to be something > predeclared, or otherwise syntactically distinguished. We could > syntactically distinguish them in the presence of C<but>, but that > doesn't let us use them anywhere else, and it makes C<but> into more > of a macro than an operator, which seems unclean. Letting them be > bare identifiers under the predeclared classname rule seems to be > the most appropriate way to do it, if indeed properties can be > unified with roles (and roles with classes). And I suspect they can > be unified, and ought to be unified. My goal isn't so much to make > sticky notes as hard to use as subtypes, but to make subtypes as > easy to use as sticky notes. I think it ought to be easy for any > object to pretend to be some other kind of object. Allomorphism is > not just for untyped Perl scalars. > Well, I don't entirely understand either. One thing I do understand > is that people get scared when I start thinking out loud. :-) sounds like you are working on the grand unification. does string theory have any place here? and i rarely understand your thinking until it is set in concrete and then chopped up with a jackhammer into little itty bitty pieces by damian. :) uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
