Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> > > Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> > > anonymous classes (it names them 'inner'
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:35:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rather than stumbling around in the dark here, is anyone actually
> experienced with object inheritance? Any Self programmers out there?
> Someone that's actually used this technique often and understands what
> works and what d
Simplifying somewhat (ok, a heck of a lot), an rvalued:
$foo is bar
or
$foo : bar
is syntactic sugar for:
bar($foo)
with some extra magic for handling a properties hash
associated with $foo's value, in particular resetting the
hash when $foo's value changes.
Right?
Basically, p
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:38:11PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Well... "package" is a magic perl5-inducing keyword in perl6, right?
> Maybe "namespace" is the way to go.
I think the idea was "class".
Lexical namespaces can just mirror whatever happens to the rest of the
package/class system.
--
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Give me data aggregation by inheritance
> Oooh, now that would be useful.
Of course it would. That's why nearly every OO language (beside Perl)
has it.
> > and then I'll grant that inner classes are easy to tack on.
> You can always do this right now:
>
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> my package Foo {
> sub bar { ... }
> }
Well... "package" is a magic perl5-inducing keyword in perl6, right?
Maybe "namespace" is the way to go.
--
John Porter
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:09:58PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Perhaps this could be done by allowing to attach a name to q
> lexical scope; perhaps this could be conflated with normal labels.
my package Foo {
sub bar { ... }
}
perhaps?
--
Michael G. Schwern
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:04:23PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Are they really necessary? You can get the same effect so many other
> > ways in Perl already,
>
> That is a very unhelpful attitude.
We've already got everything and the kitchen sink proposed for Perl
At 04:18 PM 7/2/2001 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> > Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> > anonymous classes (it names them 'inner' classes): Is Perl6 going
> > to have a similar concept?
>
>Are they re
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I forget... has the possibility/utility of having nested namespaces
> been discussed?
Not sure; probably... but we'd need not just *nested* namespaces,
but namespace *scoping*.
Perhaps this could be done by allowing to attach a name to q
lexical scope; perhaps this cou
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Are they really necessary? You can get the same effect so many other
> ways in Perl already,
That is a very unhelpful attitude.
Give me data aggregation by inheritance, namespace scoping, and
interfaces, and then I'll grant that inner classes are easy to
tack on.
--
David Whipp wrote:
> Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> anonymous classes (it names them 'inner' classes): Is Perl6 going
> to have a similar concept?
Well, Perl5 has neither of the features that would make inner
classes meaningful -- data structure aggregation by i
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:30:11PM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> > Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> > anonymous classes (it names them 'inner' classes): Is Perl6 going
> > to have a similar concept?
>
>
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> anonymous classes (it names them 'inner' classes): Is Perl6 going
> to have a similar concept?
Inner classes and anonymous classes are actually different in Java.
(Anon
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> > Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> > anonymous classes (it names them 'inner' classes): Is Perl6 going
> > to have a similar concept?
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> anonymous classes (it names them 'inner' classes): Is Perl6 going
> to have a similar concept?
Are they really necessary? You can get the same effect so many other
way
- Forwarded message from Yukihiro Matsumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 03:29:46 +0900
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Subject: [ruby-talk:17165] Language desgin
Hi,
Here's my answer to the question about language design.
|dear yukihiro
|I have visited Ru
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Rather than stumbling around in the dark here, is anyone actually
> experienced with object inheritance? Any Self programmers out there?
> Someone that's actually used this technique often and understands what
> works and what does? Any books/articles to recommend?
I
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:32:04AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> It actually is very applicable in programming Frame systems,
> which are a kind of souped-up semantic network thing,
> used a lot in knowledgebases.
Could you show me an example of what that is, how traditional
class-based OO tries to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rather than stumbling around in the dark here, is anyone actually
> experienced with object inheritance? Any Self programmers out there?
> Someone that's actually used this technique often and understands what
> works and what does?
I haven't used Self, only Lisp and P
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 08:59:59AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Second, and perhaps more importantly, we can do this perfectly well
> > with a module. No hacks, no tricks, no filters.
> > Class::Object uses the mini-class technique (ie. auto-generated
> > classes
>
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
