[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Storrs) writes:
...and map, grep, etc, would be elements of Collection, overriden in
sensible ways by the derived classes?
Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
--
void russian_roulette(void) { char *target; strcpy(target, bullet); }
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Storrs) writes:
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you think L2R is a bad idea,
and should not be supported? Or just that it has not yet been
demonstrated that this is a good idea?
I think supporting two distinct syntaces, one being a mirror image of
the other, is
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 03:12:09AM -0600, Josh Jore wrote:
This is just your friendly neighborhood curmudgeon reminding you that in
Perl 6, everything is an object. This is a concept that, as Perl
programmers, we're not familiar with.
Are these objects class based or where do the methods
At 5:45 PM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:44:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:12 AM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
You find R2L easier to read, I find L2R
easier. TIMTOWDI. Perl6 should be smart enough to support both.
Why?
Yes, technically we
At 11:38 AM + 12/17/02, Andy Wardley wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
Agreed, but I don't think this is necessarily a Bad Thing.
Disagreed--we're getting steadily closer to inventing Smalltalk. :)
Which isn't altogether a bad thing.
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 01:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are questions about the general design of Perl 6's OO system and
out of the scope of ths discussion. The Perl 6 OO Cookbook does a
good job of documenting what OO will look like in Perl 6 this week:
Umm... I think some of these recent messages have had typos between L2R
and R2L. (?) In that people seem to have been arguing against
themselves. (??) I'll try using -- and --.
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 05:45 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you think L2R
At 9:54 AM -0800 12/17/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Umm... I think some of these recent messages have had typos between
L2R and R2L. (?) In that people seem to have been arguing against
themselves. (??) I'll try using -- and --.
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 05:45 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
At 2:47 PM -0800 12/17/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:48:56AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
Agreed, but I don't think this is necessarily a Bad Thing.
Disagreed--we're getting steadily
