On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 05:54:50PM +0100, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
> Author: moritz
> Date: 2009-01-05 17:54:50 +0100 (Mon, 05 Jan 2009)
> New Revision: 24769

> +=item can
> +
> + our Bool multi method can ($self:, Str $method)
> +
> +If there is a multi method of name C<$method> that can be called on
> +C<$self>, then closure is return has C<$self> bound to the position
> +of the invocant.
> +
> +Otherwise an undefined value is returned.

"then closure is return has" ?
perhaps: "then the closure that is returned has" ?

If it returns a closure then isn't Bool the signature wrong?

Before someone 'fixes' that, though, couldn't can() just return a Bool,
and move the 'give me a closure' to another method?

Ignoring the performance cost of needlessly creating closures
for simple boolean usage, 'can' doesn't seem like a good name for
a 'give me a closure' method.

> +=item clone
> +
> + our multi method clone (::T $self --> T)
> + our multi method clone (::T $self, *%attributes --> T)
> +
> +The first variant retuns  an independent copy of C<$o> that is equivlant
> +to C<$o>.

typos "variant returns" and "equivalant"

> +The second variant does the same, but any named arguments override an
> +attribute during the cloning process.

perhaps: "any named arguments are applied to $self as attributes,
overriding any attributes with the same names". Makes it clearer that
the attributes aren't applied to nested elements.

> +=item isa
> +
> + our Bool multi method isa ($self:, $type)
> +
> +Returns true if a the invocant an instance of class C<$type>, or 

typos "Returns C<True> if the invocant is an instance ..."


Reply via email to