with:
kilobytes := kilobyte;
and the scoping is not an issue.
And with synonyms, binding as soon as declaring seems prudent.
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, BÁRTHÁZI András wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way, to catch, if I call a method, that doesn't exists, to run
a default one? I'm thinking about an error handler method.
See all the AUTO subs.
Cool! Where? Is it working currently with Pugs?
Synposis 10...
abhijit
Abhijit
thought that they do and one needs the ./ to still talk about the invocant
if some inner loop stole the $_, and until such stealing occurs .foo() and
./foo() are the same...
--abhijit
Damian
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
$?CLASS.bas();
}
}
I like this because things still look a little like a topic. This is not
better than $o/$O, except that $__ looks more like $_ (but maybe it looks
too much like $_, and that alone could invalidate this proposal).
Comments?
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http
like it a lot!
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
On Mon, 2 May 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
Tell me what this does:
class Tree { method bark() { die Cannot instantiate a Tree--it is
abstract! }
}
class Birch { method bark() { return White, papery }
}
class Oak { method bark() { return Dark,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:28:41PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
so we had junctions of Code references some days ago, what's with
junctions of Class and Role objects? :)
Could we see some code that shows
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
innocuous in that sense, and I don't think that is what
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:58, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
It also might be useful for roles to be able to delete members and
methods from a class like so:
role foo {
has $.x;
has
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
Chip Salzenberg writes:
I'd like to annotate Perl 6 parameters and other entities using
traits, since that's the best way (I know of) to have them appear
immediately in the text of the program where they are.
Supposing I had a doc trait, could I say:
sub
Another edge case: is it legal to have an optional Pair in the
signature? That is:
sub foo($x, Pair ?$y, +$z){...}
If yes, what does this parse as:
foo(10, z = 5);
If z = 5 is bound to $y, then $y is almost mandatory. ('almost' because
we can still say foo(10); ). (and then can we also
I was thinking about how binding of arguments to parameters in a
sub/method call would happen. Seems to be a darn tricky thing with all
sorts of potential pitfalls!
I have a few questions. Consider the following piece of code. Are my
expectations correct?
sub foo($x, $y, *%slurp) { $x + $y }
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:05:32AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
: Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can
: have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1,
: side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which
David Storrs wrote:
On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I think that slackness-on-demand is a better policy than
strictness-on-demand, but that, again, is just my opinion
Until now, the policy in Perl has always been that it is as slack and
forgiving as possible, and you
David Storrs wrote:
Incidentally, I just want to go on record as saying that the verbosity
of class declarations in P6 is really starting to skeeve me. I keep
reminding myself that these are the edge cases that are being discussed,
that you don't need all this stuff for the common case
Dave Whipp wrote:
Attributes are declared with Chas, but also have a unique signil
C$.. So is it strictly necessary to declare them? Or rather, is it
Cno strictly necessary -- i.e. is the following legal?
no strict;
class Foo {
method bar {
say $.a++
}
}
For the standard layout, I'd
Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can
have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1,
side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which will not be
needed for most instances of Geometry::Triangle.
I know how this can be done in P5.
($otherclass), and $otherclass would know it's own
layout.
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
is cool!
Larry
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
A6 included examples of syntax for specifying the type of the key for a
hash:
my %pet is Hash(keytype = Str, returns = Cat)
None of the synopses have anything like this. S6 talks about the
types of values, but not keys. Oversight, or is this syntax dead?
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
: None of the synopses have anything like this. S6 talks about the
: types of values, but not keys. Oversight, or is this syntax dead?
S9 talk about it.
Oops. Sorry. So it was oversight after all :)
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, David Christensen wrote:
Incidentally, just like mathematically (albeit slightly loosely) an element
of a set can be thought of as a function from any singleton, would it be
possible for Perl 6 to provide a fast (under the syntactical point of view)
way to promote a term to
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Damian Conway wrote:
Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I am a little confused if the following is valid perl6:
our xsub = { $x };
No. Illegal attempt to assign to a reference. You want aliasing/binding
instead:
our xsub := { $x };
(I like to think of := as assignment
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
I was thinking about removing files this morning, and realized that I
wish rm supported inclusion/exclusion.
In particular, I wanted to remove * but not Makefile (since my
Makefile uses lwp-download to re-fetch the source code, etc.)
It occurred
itself, and if the class
has a $.foo, it takes precedence does not work because $.foo may have
been added by another role.
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
the docs in the same file as the
26 matches
Mail list logo
