Austin Hastings wrote:
It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about this,
and I for one am in favor of the general version of it.
The original discussion posited an adverbial comparison, viz:
C$a eq:ref $b. Which, looking at your proposal, is very close to
C$a =:= $b,
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So I *really* don't think comparing the equality of references will be
a good idea, in P6.
snip
The main point is that the
reference is a unique identifier for an object. At least, I haven't been
able to think why it wouldn't
Uri Guttman wrote:
NC == Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NC How come there seems to be no way to specify mandatory named
NC parameters? I'm not sure that *I*'d ever want to write
apoc6:
A hash declaration like *%named indicates that the %named hash
should
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:18:33PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
The design team has already considered this idea, and my problem
with it then (and now) is that it's inconsistent with other forms
of variable declaration:
my sub foo( ?$bar is constant = 1 )
Luke Palmer wrote:
The idea is that positional parameters are always a contiguous
sequence in the argument list. If it looked like this:
sub foo($x, ?$y, +$k, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
Then one might presume to call it like:
foo($x, $y, $k, 1, 2, 3);
Which they can't. So
Larry Wall wrote:
On the other hand, is static would be instantly recognizable to
C programmers. Maybe they're due for a sop...
Bah! No sop for them! Cstatic has so many overloaded meanings in
C/C++ that who's to say this meaning is really the one that's worth
codifying? (I always felt this
