HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
It would behoove @Larry to examine the optional type constraints
system proposed for Javascript:TNG (see link from firefox.com
developers page). I therefore assume that they have done so, but
others would benefit by doing likewise. :)
Do I get that right: you imply
I know how comparisons are chained in Perl 6. There is a very short section on
it in S03.
So, are the operators infix:{''} etc. written in the normal way to take two
arguments? Then the language transforms A op B op C into A op B AND B op C on
an innate level. Does that apply to any
Thom Boyer thom-at-boyers.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
It would behoove @Larry to examine the optional type constraints
system proposed for Javascript:TNG (see link from firefox.com
developers page). I therefore assume that they have done so, but
others would benefit by doing
How do you declare a function that returns an array? Something like
sub foo (blah) is Array of X { ... }
seems right, but it has two problems. First is a real problem, and is a
mistake seen a lot in C# and the .NET framework. A concrete type is
used when it should be an interface. What
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
I found two dissertations and a couple of papers about typing
JavaScript. The quintessential is that optional typing is
defined as having *no* impact on the dynamic behavior of the
program. In that respect type annotations are like comments.
I
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
How do you declare a function that returns an array? Something like
sub foo (blah) is Array of X { ... }
The 'is' there is your invention, isn't it? The synopsis
require 'of' or 'returns' depending if you want to specify
the outer and/or inner type. The 'is'
On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:49 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Or, are the operators written in a tricky way, to return an object
that encapsulates the original right argument and the proper
boolean result, and has forms to take this object as well? IOW, no
built-in support.
Yes, they use
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 07:49:48AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I know how comparisons are chained in Perl 6. There is a very
short section on it in S03.
So, are the operators infix:{''} etc. written in the normal
way to take two arguments? Then the language transforms
A op B op C
On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:44 , TSa wrote:
I found two dissertations and a couple of papers about typing
JavaScript. The quintessential is that optional typing is
defined as having *no* impact on the dynamic behavior of the
program. In that respect type annotations are like comments.
I doubt that
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I seem to recall seeing sigils in a signature without names,
but now I can't remember where.
E.g. in S06 und section The want function.
Regards, TSa.
--
The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Type checking in both js2/ecma4 and p6 is not merely documentation.
It is enforced, but only if present. This is a tricky thing to
achieve, which is why I suggested reading the js stuff to see how they
went about it.
On 4/16/08, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16,
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
Then [X]() also is ()? How about (0,1) X ([]) === (0,1)?
No, that's (0,[]), (1,[1]). [] *doesn't* flatten in list context.
I guess you meant (0,[]), (1,[]). And you didn't answer what
[X]() returns. Following your arguments this would be undef.
I am genuinely
You should look at Common Lisp. it's definition of optional typing is that
if you take a correct program and remove all the type declarations, then it
still works correctly, although it may be significantly less efficient. Larry
and i have discussed this and that was his goai in Perl. Now
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:29:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: You should look at Common Lisp. it's definition of optional typing is that
if you take a correct program and remove all the type declarations, then it
still works correctly, although it may be significantly less efficient.
2008/4/15 jerry gay [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Aloha!
On behalf of the Parrot team, I'm proud to announce Parrot 0.6.1
Bird of Paradise. Parrot (http://parrotcode.org/) is a virtual machine
aimed
at running all dynamic languages.
The Windows setup is available on
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
How do you declare a function that returns an array? Something like
sub foo (blah) is Array of X { ... }
I meant of, not is.
In general the of keyword instanciates parametric types just like
the direct
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I seem to recall seeing sigils in a signature without names,
but now I can't remember where.
E.g. in S06 und section The want function.
Regards, TSa.
Somewhere else, I think it discussed unnamed parameters to
Patrick R. Michaud pmichaud-at-pobox.com |Perl 6| wrote:
It applies to any operator that has 'chain' associativity --
see S06, Subroutine traits.
If I want to make my own chained operator, perhaps the
curvy #8828;, #8829;, etc. or make my operator #8807;
a synonym for =, how would I tell
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 09:39:52AM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:49 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Or, are the operators written in a tricky way, to return an object that
encapsulates the original right argument and the proper boolean result,
and has forms to take
From: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:39:52 -0400
. . .
Yes, they use multiple-typed values such that (3 5) returns (5 but
True), which used in a numeric context is a 5 that can be chained
with further infix:{''}s but in a boolean
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Well, that's more or less how Icon does it, but we're not going to expose
anything like that to the user. If we assume that comparisons take two
immutable objects, we can leave it to the compiler to compute the actual
value once, and then feed it to
First, consider the stated examples for Generic type parameters, from the
passage which defines the terminology in S02:
sub max (Num ::X @array) {
push @array, X.new();
}
sub compare (Any ::T $x, T $y) {
return $x eqv $y;
}
Is this code syntactically and conceptually correct?
method postfix:++ (--::?CLASS)
is export
{
my ::?CLASS $temp = self;
self =. successor;
return $temp;
}
method prefix:++ (--::?CLASS)
is export
is rw
{
self =.successor;
return self;
}
In particular, are pre/postfix
23 matches
Mail list logo
