At 02:29 PM 8/11/00 +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The syntax is actually:
my type $varname;
This is in perl 5.6.0. Modifiers go as attributes after the colon:
my Dog $spot : constant = new Dog;
Yes. But what about types and attributes within complex types?
Someone on this list (TomC?) has supplied a major diatribe against const.
chaim
"JH" == Jeremy Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JH Dan Sugalski wrote:
The syntax is actually:
my type $varname;
This is in perl 5.6.0. Modifiers go as attributes after the colon:
my Dog $spot : constant
At 10:58 AM 8/11/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Someone on this list (TomC?) has supplied a major diatribe against const.
Maybe, but I don't see what's wrong with:
my $foo :const = 12;
A nice, named, lexically scoped constant. The optimizer should be able to
make reasonably good use of that.
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS At 10:58 AM 8/11/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Someone on this list (TomC?) has supplied a major diatribe against const.
DS Maybe, but I don't see what's wrong with:
DS my $foo :const = 12;
DS A nice, named, lexically scoped constant. The
At 05:09 PM 8/11/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Hmm, perhaps we should rename the attribute
:read-only
Works, though I like "constant" (or const, that's OK) just as much.
Might be worth having a way to set things to read-only temporarily, too.
Won't help the optimizer, but it could
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
A nice way of making a value read-only is lovely. And let it be a
runtime error to modify it.
The caller can easily do a foo eval{$const_item} to remove the
read-only attribute.
Hmm, perhaps we should rename the attribute
:read-only
Can't we make a value 'truely
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The syntax is actually:
my type $varname;
This is in perl 5.6.0. Modifiers go as attributes after the colon:
my Dog $spot : constant = new Dog;
Yes. But what about types and attributes within complex types?
- Constant refs vs refs to constants?
- Types of hash
