Author: audreyt
Date: Fri Jun 23 07:55:16 2006
New Revision: 9717
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
* S06: Correct an extra comma in the comment:
for @foo, sub { ... }
should be written as
for @foo sub { ... }
if the sub is to be taken as the loop body.
Modified:
I'm sending this also to perl6-language, in case someone there knows
an answer to this.
On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think so. I think the best candidate prose is about
choosing from types that have been specified, not autoconverting
between types such that
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 09:11:44PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
And what about other types?
e.g. if String can't ever be best candidate for Int, then does that
mean that neither can Int ever be best candidate for Num, because
they are different types?
Well, I think Num and Int *aren't*
AT == Audrey Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AT Indeed. So instead of having the implementions define the language,
AT this time around the specs, and tests, and API documentations, need
AT to be adhered closely by implementors, which is why we're all talking
AT together in #perl6 in the
