Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-19 Thread Markus Laire
Larry Wall kirjoitti: On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:59:43PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote: : What it doesn't solve is the $.method vs .method issue. They look similar : but one works on the invocant and one works on $_. Still a trap. Yes, and that's probably the killer of the oc idea. So much for

Precedence of where (of, is, will)?

2005-03-19 Thread Chip Salzenberg
Nobody on #perl6 today could answer this one. Is: Str | Int where { $_ } the same as: (Str | Int) where { $_ } or: Str | (Int where { $_ }) ? Followup questions, Mr. President: What kind of operators are where, of, is, and will? Is there a reason that S03 doesn't list them? What are

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-19 Thread Nigel Hamilton
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:59:43PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote: : What it doesn't solve is the $.method vs .method issue. They look similar : but one works on the invocant and one works on $_. Still a trap. Yes, and that's probably the killer of the oc idea. So much for Sleep Brain, heh,

Re: Precedence of where (of, is, will)?

2005-03-19 Thread Luke Palmer
Chip Salzenberg writes: Nobody on #perl6 today could answer this one. Is: Str | Int where { $_ } the same as: (Str | Int) where { $_ } I think it's this one. The junctive operators naturally feel pretty tight precedence, and named operators feel loose. or: Str | (Int where {

Re: Precedence of where (of, is, will)?

2005-03-19 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:36:49PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote: : Nobody on #perl6 today could answer this one. Is: : Str | Int where { $_ } : the same as: : (Str | Int) where { $_ } : or: : Str | (Int where { $_ }) : ? where binds looser than |, but it's a member of a select group

String Theory

2005-03-19 Thread Rod Adams
I propose that we make a few decisions about strings in Perl. I've read all the synopses, several list threads on the topic, and a few web guides to Unicode. I've also thought a lot about how to cleanly define all the string related functions that we expect Perl to have in the face of all this

Re: String Theory

2005-03-19 Thread Rod Adams
It's been pointed out to me that A12 mentions: Coercions to other classes can also be defined: multi sub *coerce:as (Us $us, Them ::to) { to.transmogrify($us) } Such coercions allow both explicit conversion: $them = $us as Them; as well as implicit conversions: my Them $them = $us; I read

Re: String Theory

2005-03-19 Thread Larry Wall
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 05:07:49PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote: : I propose that we make a few decisions about strings in Perl. I've read : all the synopses, several list threads on the topic, and a few web : guides to Unicode. I've also thought a lot about how to cleanly define : all the string

Re: String Theory

2005-03-19 Thread Rod Adams
Larry Wall wrote: You've more or less described the semantics available at the use bytes level, which basically comes down to a pure OO approach where the user has to be aware of all the types (to the extent that OO doesn't hide that). It's one approach to polymorphism, but I think it