HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:47:49PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: defined($spot); # false!?
:
: true! Even for my $spot = ::Dog because when my is evaluated the
: name ::Dog has be be bound, AUTOLOADED or by whatever means become
: available.
What does binding have to
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
Or do you think that people should really write ::= for constants?
For me that is one option if I want the parser to recognize the
bareword pi and attach the same meaning as the literal 3.
We have at least
my ::pi ::= 3;
my enum pi(3); # I hope the
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
[..] but since sets are
immutable values,
Does that imply they travel in $vars and are a subtype
of Value? Is Undef of Set the Set::Empty? Is Set::Empty false?
we need only provide an alternate comparison to
the constructor, and the set itself needn't remember it.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:30:09PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: HaloO,
:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: [..] but since sets are
: immutable values,
:
: Does that imply they travel in $vars and are a subtype
: of Value?
I believe so.
: Is Undef of Set the Set::Empty?
I don't think so. The empty set should
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:52:18PM -0700, Ashley Winters wrote:
: On 8/11/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: So either we have to bifurcate the concept into temporarily constant
: and permanently constant, or we force people to distinguish with ::=
: (or is constant('foo')), or we make
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:16:52PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: HaloO,
:
: Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Or do you think that people should really write ::= for constants?
:
: For me that is one option if I want the parser to recognize the
: bareword pi and attach the same meaning as the literal 3.
: We have at
