Patrick (), Carl (), Patrick ():
But yes, I expect that it will be caught as
a compile-time error.
And do you agree it's reasonable to expect this of every compiler?
Reasonable to expect it, yes -- but whether or not this rises to the
level of being a requirement in the spec may be a
Patrick R. Michaud pmichaud-at-pobox.com |Perl 6| wrote:
Reasonable to expect it, yes -- but whether or not this rises to the
level of being a requirement in the spec may be a different matter.
I could envision the possibility that some otherwise-very-capable
Perl 6 implementation might be
In S06, what is the difference between is ref and is rw? The text says
that the rw may be converted to an lvalue, and that ref must already be. But
what is that supposed to mean?
--John
On 2008 May 10, at 21:46, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
In S06, what is the difference between is ref and is rw? The
text says that the rw may be converted to an lvalue, and that ref
must already be. But what is that supposed to mean?
At a guess, is rw makes a parameter variable into a local
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 01:46:57AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
: In S06, what is the difference between is ref and is rw? The text says
that the rw may be converted to an lvalue, and that ref must already be. But
what is that supposed to mean?
Mostly that means that rw will cause
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 09:51:26PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2008 May 10, at 21:46, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
In S06, what is the difference between is ref and is rw? The text
says that the rw may be converted to an lvalue, and that ref must already
be. But what is that
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH allbery-at-ece.cmu.edu |Perl 6| wrote:
On 2008 May 10, at 21:46, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
In S06, what is the difference between is ref and is rw? The
text says that the rw may be converted to an lvalue, and that ref
must already be. But what is that supposed to
