On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:21:15PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote: > > I'm surprised there hasn't be a good overhaul of the prototyping > > system proposeed yet. > > What exactly didn't you like about RFC 128??? Ummm... the fact that its title doesn't match /proto/. My bad. Okay, its a proposal to overhaul prototyping, cool. But I don't see anything to allow C<length $string> and C<length @array> live together. Its a big RFC, I probably missed it. -- Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse Cheating is often more efficient. - Seven of Nine
- RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warning Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warning Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warn... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warning Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warn... Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warn... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warning Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warn... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a ... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserve... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 238 (v1) length(@ary) deserves a warning Philip Newton
- Re: matters supersessionary (was: RFC 238 (v1... Tom Christiansen