At 04:35 PM 8/31/2001 -0500, Me wrote:
Dan, I don't immediately see how per object/class dispatch
control helps to make multimethods pluggable.
There's going to be a method call entry in the variable's vtable. You
want a different method call method, you change the entry. Probably by
changing
At 05:23 PM 8/28/2001 -0700, David Whipp wrote:
They list two reasons to make your class final. One is security
(which might actually be valid, but I doubt it will hold up to
determined attack), the other though...
You may also wish to declare a class as final for object-oriented
At 06:34 PM 8/30/2001 -0700, Hong Zhang wrote:
With optimized C compiler, we can achieve similar performace
with obviously more code. Let's say C is only 80% of Fortran on math, I
still don't see the reason to put math into C language for the last 20% of
speed. It may be my personal preference.
At 10:03 PM 8/30/2001 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Thinking about what Zhang was saying about multiple-dispatch not being
inherently OO. I think he's sort of right. Multiple-dispatch need
not be confined to method lookups.
There is the potential for a pretty significant cost to this, since
hi,
I was looking at Interbase SELECT syntax and saw these two handy shortcuts :
operator = {= | | | = | = | ! | ! | | !=}
! and !
Personaly i didn't liked if (! ...) construct too much, so even that
starting to use unless is harder for non-english speaker, I think is much
cleaner and
Uri Guttman wrote:
[Re: use strict 'typing'; my $rex = new Dog; $rex.bark]
then it should be a compile time error at the assignment to $rex
and not later. you can't trace $rex at compile time to see what
kind of object (if any) was assigned to it. so the illegal method
call can't (easily) be
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 01:10:58PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:03 PM 8/30/2001 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Thinking about what Zhang was saying about multiple-dispatch not being
inherently OO. I think he's sort of right. Multiple-dispatch need
not be confined to method lookups.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 03:12:17PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Nope, the cost will be paid on all sub calls. We at least need to check on
every sub call to see if there are multiple versions of the functions. (We
can't tell at compile time if it's a single or multi-method sub call, since
it
raptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was looking at Interbase SELECT syntax and saw these two handy
shortcuts :
operator = {= | | | = | = | ! | ! | | !=}
! and !
How is ! different from =?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
-Original Message-
From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 4:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ! and !
raptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was looking at Interbase SELECT syntax and saw these two handy
shortcuts :
Sterin, Ilya [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
How is ! different from =?
It's just more syntax just like foo != bar
is the same as (foo bar || foo bar).
It might prove convenient to express the expression.
It's the same number of characters. How
On Saturday 01 September 2001 05:40 pm, Russ Allbery wrote:
Sterin, Ilya [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
How is ! different from =?
It's just more syntax just like foo != bar
is the same as (foo bar || foo bar).
It might prove convenient
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:40:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
How is ! different from =?
It's just more syntax just like foo != bar
is the same as (foo bar || foo bar).
Not if you're using Quantum::SuperPositions ;-)
It might prove convenient to express the expression.
It's the
Ken wrote:
The way to approach this problem is to profile
Class::MultiMethods and figure out (a) where the hot spots
are and (b) what core support would help eliminate those
hot spots.
But please don't do that until I release the next update of C::MM,
which will use a new
A couple weeks ago I alluded that I was working on some documentation.
After a brief hiatus, I've picked it back up, and am ready to release
an entire half document. Big whoopee.
Anyway, what I'm working on is more or less a Statement of Fact, from a Perl
6 language perspective. It is
# -Original Message-
# From: Ken Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 9:44 AM
# To: Me
# Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael G Schwern; Dan
# Sugalski
# Subject: Re: Multiple-dispatch on functions
...
# The one thing I'm curious about is
BCW == Bryan C Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BCW Keywords
BCW continue, do, else, elsif, for, foreach, given, goto, grep, if, last,
BCW map, next, redo, sort, sub, unless, until, when, while
BCW Basic Constructs
BCW 1. [ LABEL: ] expr;
BCW 2. [ LABEL: ] { block } [
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 6:06 PM
To: Russ Allbery
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ! and !
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:40:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
How is ! different from =?
It's just
-Original Message-
From: Bryan C. Warnock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 5:59 PM
To: Russ Allbery; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ! and !
On Saturday 01 September 2001 05:40 pm, Russ Allbery wrote:
Sterin, Ilya [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From:
19 matches
Mail list logo
