Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
When you dispatch, what happens would depend upon WALKMETH (according to
the pseudocode for CALLONE in A12). Usually the first inherited method
would get called.
Ohh, yes, that thing. I forget about it. And actually I hope that
there's a version among the standard pragmas
David Storrs wrote:
Let's move this away from simple types like Str and Int for a moment.
If you consider them simple...
Tell me what this does:
class Tree {
method bark() { die Cannot instantiate a Tree--it is abstract! }
}
class Birch {
method bark() { return White, papery }
}
On Mon, 2 May 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
Tell me what this does:
class Tree { method bark() { die Cannot instantiate a Tree--it is
abstract! }
}
class Birch { method bark() { return White, papery }
}
class Oak { method bark() { return Dark,
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
Let's move this away from simple types like Str and Int for a moment.
If you consider them simple...
When compared to
arbitrary-class-that-was-defined-by-
arbitrary-programmer-of-
David Storrs writes:
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Thomas Sandla wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
class Tree {
method bark() { die Cannot instantiate a Tree--it is abstract! }
}
class Birch {
method bark() { return White, papery }
}
class Oak {
method
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 16:55 -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
That would be absolutely horrible.
Str|Int is simply the type of Yes|1, isn't it? That would certainly
make signature
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:59:59AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 16:55 -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
That would be absolutely horrible.
You all seem to have
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we see some code that shows why this is a good idea? My initial
reaction is horror; I can very easily see huge numbers of subtle,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:28:41PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
so we had junctions of Code references some days ago, what's with
junctions of Class and Role objects? :)
Could we see some code that shows
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
innocuous in that sense, and I don't think that is what horrified David.
What was troublesome
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
innocuous in that sense, and I don't think that is what
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
innocuous in that sense, and I don't think that is what
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:28:41PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
so we had junctions of Code references some days ago, what's with
junctions of Class and Role objects? :)
Could we see some code that shows why this is a good idea? My initial
reaction is horror; I can very easily see huge
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:28:41PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
so we had junctions of Code references some days ago, what's with
junctions of Class and Role objects? :)
Could we see some code that shows why this is a good idea? My initial
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
Hi,
so we had junctions of Code references some days ago, what's with
junctions of Class and Role objects? :)
I like them! In the type lattice A|B is the lub (lowest upper bound)
of A and B. And AB is the glb (greatest lower bound) of A and B.
Both are cases of multiple
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 09:51, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
Hi,
so we had junctions of Code references some days ago, what's with
junctions of Class and Role objects? :)
I like them! In the type lattice A|B is the lub (lowest upper bound)
of A and B. And AB is the glb
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that that's the way it MUST be, just that that seems
to be the way that junctions would work in that situation.
I know, and I'm very confused about all these pseudo procedural uses
of junctions. And others seem to share my state of affairs.
If we decide
17 matches
Mail list logo
