On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Jon Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> > TSa wrote:
> > > I totally agree! Using 'isa' pulls in the type checker. Do we have the
> > > same option for 'does' e.g. 'doesa'? Or is type checking always implied
> > > in role composition? Note that the class can override a role's methods
> > > at will.
> > It occurs to me that this shouldn't be new keywords, but adverbs, i.e.
> > :strict Dog''.
> Agreed. I'm definitely in the category of people who find the
> difference between "is" and "isa" to be, as Larry put it, eye-glazing.
> I can follow it, but that's only because I've been getting a crash
> course in type theory.
> Brandon's alternative has the potential to be less confusing given the
> right choice of adverb, and has the added bonus that the same adverb
> could apply equally well to both 'is' and 'does'.
> On a side note, I'd like to make a request of the Perl 6 community
> with regard to coding style: could we please have adverbal names that
> are, well, adverbs? "is :strict Dog" brings to my mind the English
> "Fido is a strict dog", rather than "Fido is strictly a dog". Not
> only is "is :strictly Dog" more legible, but it leaves room for the
> possible future inclusion of adjective-based syntax such as "big Dog"
> (which might mean the same thing as "Dog but is big" or "Dog where
> .size > Average"). To misquote Einstein, things should be as simple
> as is reasonable, but not simpler.
and can I add another quote, from someone who's last name is appropriate ;)
'Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.' (Alan Perlis)
cheers, Jim Fuller