On 7/18/05, Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this needed, when you can just;
atomic {
unsafeIO { $dbh.begin_work };
unsafeIO { $dbh.do(...) };
unsafeIO { $dbh.commit };
} CATCH {
$dbh.rollback;
};
Shouldn't that `CATCH` block be within the
This currently works in Pugs:
for [1..10].pairs - Pair $x { say $x.value }
But this does not:
for [1..10].pairs - $x { say $x.value }
Because the ruling that pairs must not be bound to parameters that are
not explicitly declared to handle them. Is this a desirable behaviour?
Thanks,
Ok, I will un-warnock myself here :)
As of r5674 in the Pugs tree, the Perl6::MetaModel now supports all the
A12 dispatch orders.
:canonical # canonical dispatch order
:ascendant # most-derived first, like destruction order
:descendant # least-derived first, like
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:54:40PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: Ok, I will un-warnock myself here :)
Sorry, I've been occupied by various time-consuming family obligations.
: And after some discussion on #perl6 I decided to make 'C3' the
: algorithm of choice for the :ascendant ordering, and
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 03:34:36PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
: Say I make an accessor method for an attribute that doesn't really
: 'exist'.
:
: For instance, a good example of this is the month_0 vs month
: properties on a date object; I want to make both look equivalent as
: real properties, but
Larry Wall wrote:
Users of the class includes people subclassing the class, so to them
they need to be able to use $.month_0 and $.month, even though there
is no has $.month_0 declared in the Class implementation, only
has $.month.
We thought about defining the attribute variables that
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 03:48:55PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This currently works in Pugs:
for [1..10].pairs - Pair $x { say $x.value }
But this does not:
for [1..10].pairs - $x { say $x.value }
Because the ruling that
