All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name.
-- c
Please justify that.
--John
As a 'Joe Blow' type programmer trying to follow this thread, I went
back to the traits paper
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~black/publications/TR_CSE_02-012.pdf and read
John's Polymorphism paper.
I've come back to this:
my $!var class attribute, no accessor, not inheritable. How is this
different from a normal lexical variable? Role composition can show
differences?
What's the point?
our $!var class attribute, no accessor, inheritable.
But private variables are not inherited.
The synopses are contradictary over the way 'constant' works. First it says
that it is a declarator like 'my'. Then in S12 it shows
my constant ...
and
our constant ...
that is, independant from the my or our declarator.
Assuming the second way is newer/better, what is the grammar for
I've searched the archives, but did not see a good explanation of what eqv
does, and what is meant by snapshotting in the description of the synopses.
Can anyone explain it (with examples?) or point to an existing treatment,
please?
--John
On 2008 May 3, at 6:25, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
- if u want to add a role to an existing object, perl wraps the
object into a class, adds the role, reinstantiates the object.
As I understand it, Perl inserts a new anonymous class as the object's
parent, and adds the role to that. The
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I've searched the archives, but did not see a good explanation of what eqv
does,
and what is meant by snapshotting in the description of the synopses.
Try this: http://markmail.org/message/vub5hceisf6cuemk
Can anyone explain it (with examples?) or point to an
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM, John M. Dlugosz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've searched the archives, but did not see a good explanation of what eqv
does, and what is meant by snapshotting in the description of the synopses.
Can anyone explain it (with examples?) or point to an existing
I suspect that at the core of John's question is the fact that nobody
has ever actually said what 'snapshot semantics' is: it's a term
that's been tossed around with the assumption that people already know
its meaning.
My own understanding of it is that snapshot semantics involves
looking at an
What does this mean?
our sub outer ()
{
...
our sub inner () { ... }
}
inner; # defined?
I think this should be illegal. Nested named subs makes sense for 'my',
with the rules of visibility matching the ability to clone the closure.
But putting the nested sub into package scope
Adriano Ferreira a.r.ferreira-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM, John M. Dlugosz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've searched the archives, but did not see a good explanation of what eqv
does, and what is meant by snapshotting in the description of the synopses.
Can
Jon Lang dataweaver-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
I suspect that at the core of John's question is the fact that nobody
has ever actually said what 'snapshot semantics' is: it's a term
that's been tossed around with the assumption that people already know
its meaning.
My own understanding of it
On 2008-May-3, at 5:12 pm, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Jon Lang dataweaver-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
My own understanding of it is that snapshot semantics involves
looking at an immutable copy of an object (a snapshot of it)
instead of looking at the object itself. That said, my
12 matches
Mail list logo
