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. 
> ``is
>  > :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

Reply via email to