On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 06:37:26AM -0800, dev.null.box wrote:
: Hi...
:
: I´m used to test oneliners on the perl6 irc channel when i´m at
: home... But, at work, latetly i´m having lots of free time (this week
: has been sooo boring).
:
: But, i have irc blocked at my office (and yes, i´ve tried
HaloO,
Jon Lang wrote:
Carl Mäsak wrote:
* A should be treated as a post-declared package.
Whatever this means, it sounds preferable. :)
It means that you can define package A without ever declaring it, by
declaring all of its contents using such statements as 'role A::B ',
'sub A::Foo',
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 06:27:07PM +0100, TSa wrote:
Does that imply that packages behave like C++ namespaces? That is
a package can be inserted into several times:
package A
{
class Foo {...}
}
# later elsewhere
package A
{
class Bar {...}
}
I
TSa wrote:
Does that imply that packages behave like C++ namespaces? That is
a package can be inserted into several times:
package A
{
class Foo {...}
}
# later elsewhere
package A
{
class Bar {...}
}
I would think that this is just different syntax to the
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 09:44:12AM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
: TSa wrote:
: Does that imply that packages behave like C++ namespaces? That is
: a package can be inserted into several times:
:
:package A
:{
:class Foo {...}
:}
:# later elsewhere
:package A
:{
:
At present, signatures appear to serve at least three rather diverse
purposes in Perl 6:
* parameter lists for routines (can also be used to specify what a
given routine returns; explored in detail in S06).
* variable declaration (see declarators in S03).
* parametric roles (currently only
Larry Wall wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
: Well, we _do_ have a mechanism in place for adding to an existing
: class (e.g., class Foo is also { ... }), and classes are a special
: case of modules; so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do
: likewise with modules and even packages. That said,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:46:42AM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
: And with package versioning, you may not need an is instead
: equivalent: if you want to redefine a package, just create a newer
: version of it in a tighter lexical scope than the original package was
: in. You can still access the
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:24:14AM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
: Given that signatures have grown well beyond their origins as
: subroutine parameter lists, and given that signatures have their own
: syntax, perhaps they should be moved out of S06? I could see S08
: being retasked to address
Larry Wall wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
: And with package versioning, you may not need an is instead
: equivalent: if you want to redefine a package, just create a newer
: version of it in a tighter lexical scope than the original package was
: in. You can still access the original package if you
On Friday, 13. February 2009 20:30:24 Larry Wall wrote:
While taking a shower I refined the design somewhat in my head,
thinking about the ambiguities in package names when you're redefining.
By my previous message, it's not clear whether the intent of
multi package Foo::Bar {...}
is to
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-02-14 02:31:33 +0100 (Sat, 14 Feb 2009)
New Revision: 25323
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S10-packages.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S11-modules.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S12-objects.pod
Log:
Allow use of :: as anonymous package name
Clear up more * as GLOBAL fossils
Modified:
In reading over the Debugging draft (i.e., the future S20), I ran
across the concept of the infectious trait - that is, a trait that
doesn't just get applied to the thing to which it is explicitly
applied; rather, it tends to spread to whatever else that thing comes
in contact with. Taint is the
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-02-14 06:21:13 +0100 (Sat, 14 Feb 2009)
New Revision: 25325
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
Log:
[S19] $?PROGRAM makes no sense
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
===
---
Argh! I submitted a patch implementing $?PROGRAM in Rakudo literally
5 minutes before you sent this...
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=63228
Chris
On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:21 PM, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-02-14 06:21:13 +0100 (Sat, 14 Feb
Author: wayland
Date: 2009-02-14 06:38:34 +0100 (Sat, 14 Feb 2009)
New Revision: 25328
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S16-io.pod
Log:
S16-io: Reorganised everything, grouping things together a bit better. This is
only a
draft; otherwise I'd be a lot more careful :).
Specifically, I've:
-
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:34:03PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
Argh! I submitted a patch implementing $?PROGRAM in Rakudo literally 5
minutes before you sent this...
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=63228
Indeed, why do you think I fixed the spec? :)
But don't worry, we tend
On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:50 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:34:03PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
Argh! I submitted a patch implementing $?PROGRAM in Rakudo
literally 5
minutes before you sent this...
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=63228
Indeed, why do you
Author: wayland
Date: 2009-02-14 07:37:40 +0100 (Sat, 14 Feb 2009)
New Revision: 25329
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S16-io.pod
Log:
S02: Moved comment about standard file handles to S16.
S16: Did more clearing up, and fixed some stupid things I did last time
Hi. I've been trying to help reorganise the draft S16, as I'm also in
the process of writing something roughly equivalent to Net::Cmd in Perl6. I
have some questions.
First question, how do IO::Encoded and eg. IO::Encoded::Readable
relate to each other? I'm assuming it's one of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
