At 8:16 AM -0800 3/15/03, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:27:03AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: I think that it would be nice to be able to chain yourself in there, rather
: than having to replace.
:
: In perl5 there are some things you have to override, rather than adding to.
: Offha
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:27:03AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: I think that it would be nice to be able to chain yourself in there, rather
: than having to replace.
:
: In perl5 there are some things you have to override, rather than adding to.
: Offhand I can't see a practical way that the opc
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:02:22AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We didn't include it in A6 but our current notions (i.e. this week ;-)
> > about interactions between subs, methods, and multimethods are
> > something like this:
> >
> >
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Proctor asked:
>
> > If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
> >
> > sub factorial(int $a) {...}
> >
> > then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up the
> > non-integer form:
> >
> > multi factorial(num $a) {.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:
: On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:39 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
: >You want C to tell the compiler to build in multiple dispatch.
: >Any invocation of C after C is going to be a penny
: >dropped into the great Pachinko game of m
On Wed 12 Mar, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:39 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > You want C to tell the compiler to build in multiple dispatch.
> > Any invocation of C after C is going to be a penny
> > dropped into the great Pachinko game of multimethod-dispatchery.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:39 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
You want C to tell the compiler to build in multiple dispatch.
Any invocation of C after C is going to be a penny
dropped into the great Pachinko game of multimethod-dispatchery. By
default, if no winning multi appears, the call falls
Richard Proctor asked:
> If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
>
> sub factorial(int $a) {...}
>
> then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up the
> non-integer form:
>
> multi factorial(num $a) {...}
>
> Does this promote the original declaration of factorial to a m
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 11:19 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > But you can't wrap multi-ness, as far as I can tell.
> >
> > [A6]
> > And it happens that the multimethod dispatch is smart enough to
> find
> > the ordinary single-invocant sys
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 11:19 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
But you can't wrap multi-ness, as far as I can tell.
[A6]
And it happens that the multimethod dispatch is smart enough to find
the ordinary single-invocant sysread method, even though it may not
have been explicitly declared a multim
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 06:42 AM, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
> >
> > sub factorial(int $a) {...}
> >
> > then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick
> up
> > the
> > non-inte
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 06:42 AM, Richard Proctor wrote:
If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
sub factorial(int $a) {...}
then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up
the
non-integer form:
multi factorial(num $a) {...}
Does this promote the original decla
If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
sub factorial(int $a) {...}
then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up the
non-integer form:
multi factorial(num $a) {...}
Does this promote the original declaration of factorial to a multi?
if not what happens?
Richard
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
