HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
What does this mean?
our sub outer ()
{
...
our sub inner () { ... }
}
inner; # defined?
No, because {...} is just a declaration. You can give a
definition later in the surrounding module/package/class.
Within that scope there can be only one
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Yes. How is a snapshot different from the object?
My interpretation is that === is an equivalence relation
on a WHICH set and eqv is an equivalence relation on a
WHAT set. A mutable value is an element of a (n1):1 mapping
of a subset of WHAT to a single WHICH. A
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
No, because {...} is just a declaration. You can give a
definition later in the surrounding module/package/class.
Within that scope there can be only one definition, of course.
I did not mean to use { ... } to mean declaration only, but to show
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I posted my current work at
http://www.dlugosz.com/files/specdoc.pdf
Please look.
In 24.28.1 abs you define
our ::?CLASS multi method abs ( $x: )
I would rather nail down the return type to 'Num where {$_ = 0}'.
The latter might also get a nice name, e.g.
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
In 24.28.1 abs you define
our ::?CLASS multi method abs ( $x: )
I would rather nail down the return type to 'Num where {$_ = 0}'.
The latter might also get a nice name, e.g. Abs. This in turn would
make the abs multi method/sub kind of
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:01 AM, John M. Dlugosz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
No, because {...} is just a declaration. You can give a
definition later in the surrounding module/package/class.
Within that scope there can be only one definition,
Jon Lang dataweaver-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:01 AM, John M. Dlugosz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
No, because {...} is just a declaration. You can give a
definition later in the surrounding module/package/class.
On 2008-May-3, at 5:04 pm, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
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
