From: Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 15:17:27 +0200
Longer, but clearer would be :instanceof.
Allison
I like this much better, despite the length. There may be other classes
and types involved (especially when defining a :multi sub), but the only
relevant
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Bob Rogers wrote:
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Is the idea sane, and is the name of the adverb OK? If so, I'll go ahead
and implement it (with changes as needed).
The idea is generally sane.
It is a good idea. I think I would call it ":class", though.
I d
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Bob Rogers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 01:38:46 +0200
>
> Bob Rogers wrote:
> > It is a good idea. I think I would call it ":class", though.
>
> I did ponder that, and then worried t
From: Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 01:38:46 +0200
Bob Rogers wrote:
> It is a good idea. I think I would call it ":class", though.
I did ponder that, and then worried that people would confuse it with
putting a method into a certain class, wh
It could be a pmc instead of a class. How about :type ?
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Jonathan Worthington
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Rogers wrote:
>>
>> From: Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 00:25:35 +0200
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In Perl 6 we need to be
Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 00:25:35 +0200
Hi,
In Perl 6 we need to be able to have Parrot subs take on a range of
different types . . .
Is the idea sane, and is the name of the adverb OK? If so, I'll go ahead
