David Green wrote:
I'm wondering whether we can make use of the contrary sense implied by
the word "but", and have it apply specifically to cases where
something is being overridden. In cases where there isn't something
to override we could use a different word, such as "with".
I must admit
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Green wrote:
> I'm wondering whether we can make use of the contrary sense implied by the
> word "but", and have it apply specifically to cases where something is being
> overridden. In cases where there isn't something to override we could use a
> different
Lots of things will have default stringifications, say, that may not
always merit the contrary force of "but". Maybe "but" should be
needed only when a method has already been mixed in anonymously.
Oops, that would wreck the canonical example of "0 but true". Since
the Bool(Int) method alr
I'm wondering whether we can make use of the contrary sense implied by
the word "but", and have it apply specifically to cases where
something is being overridden. In cases where there isn't something
to override we could use a different word, such as "with".
E.g.
$x = Tue but "Today"
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-12-03 22:08:54 +0100 (Thu, 03 Dec 2009)
New Revision: 29251
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S12-objects.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S32-setting-library/Containers.pod
Log:
rename PairVal to Enum and PairValSeq to EnumMap, PairSeq to PairMap.
rename
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-12-03 20:00:40 +0100 (Thu, 03 Dec 2009)
New Revision: 29250
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S12-objects.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S32-setting-library/Containers.pod
Log:
make pair values sequences both associative and positional
revise enum mixins
