On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, David Green wrote:
> I would expect "$foo where {$_ ~~ X}" and "X $foo" simply to be different
> ways of writing the same thing, but whatever works!
Yes, but the where clause lets you test against multiple types at
once. They don't participate in multiple dispatch
Author: moritz
Date: 2009-10-21 00:15:32 +0200 (Wed, 21 Oct 2009)
New Revision: 28865
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
Log:
[S06] extend uniq name constraint to named parameters too
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
===
Author: masak
Date: 2009-10-21 00:03:48 +0200 (Wed, 21 Oct 2009)
New Revision: 28864
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
Log:
[S06] same-named non-anon positionals are a compile error
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
HaloO,
On Tuesday, 20. October 2009 18:35:36 David Green wrote:
> >> So what the OP wants to do is declare a method that is available on
> >> all those invocants - and only those invocatnts - which do all of
> >> roles X, Y, and Z. Granted, you can declare a new role XandYandZ
> >> that does X, Y
On 2009-Oct-20, at 8:04 am, Jon Lang wrote:
The above example is of course trivial. A more serious example
might be one based off of a coordinate system:
role point {
has Num $x, Num $y;
method angle() is rw( { $.x = .r * cos($_); $.y = .r *
sin($_) } ) { return atn($.y/$.x
On 2009-Oct-20, at 7:55 am, Matthew Walton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Mark J. Reed
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jon Lang
wrote:
Because a method is part of a role, and ought to abide by the same
terms by which the role abides. If Logging doesn't do Numeric, it
shou
I recently attempted to write a sample mutable role that made use of a
number of lvalue methods, and I had a bear of a time getting it to
work. Could we arrange for a more intuitive option to be available?
For example, allow the programmer to pass a writer code block in
through the rw trait, and a
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jon Lang wrote:
>> Because a method is part of a role, and ought to abide by the same
>> terms by which the role abides. If Logging doesn't do Numeric, it
>> shouldn't have any methods in it that won't work
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jon Lang wrote:
> Because a method is part of a role, and ought to abide by the same
> terms by which the role abides. If Logging doesn't do Numeric, it
> shouldn't have any methods in it that won't work unless it does.
100% agreed.
So what the OP wants to do i
Am Montag, den 19.10.2009, 16:43 -0700 schrieb Jon Lang:
> Raphael Descamps wrote:
> > I personally don't understand why we don't have a exclude and alias
> > operator in Perl 6 but I have not read all the synopses and don't have
> > an overview.
>
> I don't think that it's explicitly spelled out
10 matches
Mail list logo
