HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
role R3 does A B { ... }
R3.does(A) # false: R3 can't neccessarily do everything that A can.
A.does(R3) # false: A can't neccessarily do everything that R3 can.
That last one should be true. Role R3 contains the things that A and B
have in common. Hence
Jonathan Lang skribis 2006-10-19 18:27 (-0700):
Let's say that I want
$expression?;
to mean the same thing as the statement
$_ = $expression;
That is, any statement that ends with a '?;' instead of a ';'
evaluates in scalar context instead of void context and stores the
result
TSa wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
role R3 does A B { ... }
R3.does(A) # false: R3 can't neccessarily do everything that A can.
A.does(R3) # false: A can't neccessarily do everything that R3 can.
That last one should be true. Role R3 contains the things that A and B
have in common.
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
In short, R3 isn't neccessarily a subset of A; it's a superset of A
B. In a partial ordering graph, there's no reliable ordering between
R3 and A.
The standard syntax for creating roles can't reliably produce a subset
of an existing role, because it always allows
How does one do this:
http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/archives/2006/10/19/threaded-data-collection-with-python-including-examples/
in perl 6? Assumin get_feed_list, get_feed_contents, parse_feed, and
store_feed_items are handled by modules like LWP and XML::Parser.
Will there be something native
HaloO,
I wrote:
In fact if we decide to specify a role combination syntax then it
should be the same everywhere. That means in a signature A|B would
require a more specific type and pure A or B wouldn't be admissible.
To get the old meaning of | you have to write AB or perhaps the
juxtaposition
HaloO,
I wrote:
Yes, but I was conjecturing that the additions to AB are pushed
down to A and B such that their intension sets remain strict supersets
of AB.
Think of the Complex example that might read
role Complex does Num !Comparable
{
method im { return 0; }
method re {
TSa wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
In short, R3 isn't neccessarily a subset of A; it's a superset of A
B. In a partial ordering graph, there's no reliable ordering between
R3 and A.
The standard syntax for creating roles can't reliably produce a subset
of an existing role, because it always
TSa wrote:
Here is yet another idea to go with the two lattice operations:
/\ meet also: infimum, intersection, glb (greatest lower bound)
\/ join also: supremum, union,lub (least upper bound)
I have to admit: if it turns out that '' and '|' can't be used for
'intersection'
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:10:12AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: TSa wrote:
: Here is yet another idea to go with the two lattice operations:
:
:/\ meet also: infimum, intersection, glb (greatest lower bound)
:\/ join also: supremum, union,lub (least upper bound)
:
: I have
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:31:18PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Though actually, now that I think about it, the cascaded notation
: in S12 is illegal according to S03, since does is classified as
: non-chaining, which implies non-associative.
:
: Wait a minute. Isn't
Author: larry
Date: Fri Oct 20 17:01:15 2006
New Revision: 13252
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
does operator is non-associative according to S03. Leave it that way for now.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Larry Wall wrote:
Presumably
$obj does (A,B,C)
could also be made to work even with non-associative does.
Right.
Note that you _do_ want to be able to do something to the effect of
ordered composition in a single statement, though:
role A {
...
method m { ... }
}
13 matches
Mail list logo
