On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 05:09 PM, David Storrs wrote:
==QUESTION
- Page 8 says In some languages, all methods are multimethods. I
believe that Java is one of these. Is that right and what are some
others? (This is really just curiousity.)
==/
Doesn't C++ work this way? Also I believe
This may have been asked before, and I apologize if I somehow missed it,
but can junctions be used for multiple properties?
I can see it possibly being useful in a situation like the
following(which may be completely off, as I'm still digging my way
through A6):
class Foo {
method bar is
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 02:13 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I don't think that junctions make sense here. Besides, the is is
optional:
class Foo {
method bar is public rw const frob knob { ... }
}
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about this. Thanks. Still I
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 05:36 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
Chris Dutton wrote:
@ages[*] = $today - %date_of_birth{@names}.values[*]
Well done. Thanks for working that out, Chris. And, in the process,
confirming my sense that vector ops are a better solution here.
;-)
Glad I could
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 11:20 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Chris Dutton wrote:
Given discussions about hyper operators in the past, I found this
rather interesting in the release notes.
http://pike.idonex.com/download/notes/7.4.10.xml
Interesting, but I still feel that vectorized
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 02:13 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
The remaining big question, then, is whether you can truly subclass
Array to achieve Ctie-like behavior:
class MyArray is Array { ...
On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 08:55 AM, Smylers wrote:
Murat Ünalan wrote:
print date if $var is int( 1..31 );
I don't think that the type needs to be specified here, especially if
the variable has already been declared to be of the required type, so a
junction should be sufficient:
On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 12:00 PM, Chris Dutton wrote:
print date if 1..31 given $var;
Except that this would always be true. Nevermind, I'm an idiot.
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 01:11 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
We can make that
@out = @in.grep({...}).map({...}).sort;# [2]
if we want to grind our OO axe, but I find that syntax disappointing.
I like that the idea is important enough in Perl to have it's own
grammar, but I
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Brent Dax wrote
To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references anymore.
They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever
symbols.
I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my brain
So many operators...
It's now clear what we need. Unicode operators. That should buy us at
least another week to hash out the rest of the necessary operators. ;-)
It'd also silence the legions of critics who complain about Perl being
too easy to read if we, for instance, used the Kanji
Or we could go with Valspeak:
$a is like $b and stuff
At the moment I like like the best, actually...
Hmmm... I could actually see like in a more active role. Along the
lines of:
my str $string;
my $other_string is like $string;
Analogous to saying:
my str $other_string
Except that
On Saturday, October 12, 2002, at 01:10 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 08:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we use | and as sugar for any() and all(), then their precedence
should probably be the same as || and .
Should they? I had in mind something
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 05:03 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro writes:
humor
Uh-oh: my life is gonna suck. I've spent days hunting obscure bugs
that were caused by a single mistyped character. Now I'll be spending
days hunting obscure
One first thing I notice while I'm supposed to be doing homework. :-)
Wasn't class MyClass; supposed to work along the line of Perl5's
package MyClass; and make everything following that statement the
definition of MyClass?
On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 12:57 AM, Noah White wrote:
Note that an alternate definition of private is often used, as
follows:
A private attribute is an attribute whose scope is restricted
such that
it may be accessed only within the class in which it has been
declared,
On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 06:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:13:45AM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
How exactly does one weaken a precondition?
At least in Eiffel, if you redefine a method, you may not give it
stringer preconditions than the original method
On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 05:19 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:59:08PM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
With pre/post conditions, a subclass is allowed to weaken the
preconditions or strengthen the postconditions.
How exactly does one weaken a precondition?
At
On Monday, September 30, 2002, at 11:19 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 06:04:28PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
On a slightly different note, if we have interfaces then I'd really
like to follow the Eiffel model: features such as renaming methods
in the derived class may
We are supposedly going to be able to set a class to be
uninheritable. Will we be able to set a single method or attribute to
be uniherited by any subclasses? Please forgive me if this is one of
the seven deadly OO sins. I haven't yet had any formal education with
regards to
On Monday, August 12, 2002, at 01:27 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 07:30:19PM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
The only problem I could see, and I wanted to wait for at least one
other opinion before mentioning this, is rewriting the above as:
my $foo_class $foo_obj
Since Adam Lopesto asked a non-regex question, I don't feel quite as out
of place for doing the same.
This one actually came to me just the other night. Would it be possible
in Perl 6 to create anonymous classes? Something like:
my $foo_class = class {
method new {
#
On Saturday, August 10, 2002, at 06:25 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
Chris Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since Adam Lopesto asked a non-regex question, I don't feel quite as
out of place for doing the same.
This one actually came to me just the other night. Would it be
possible in Perl 6
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 10:17 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 13:58, Chris Dutton wrote:
method world is public_to(Bar) {
Might as well make that:
method world is private(Bar)
I tend to take any opportunity to recycle syntax, plus keywords
On Sunday, May 12, 2002, at 02:18 PM, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
While thinking Eiffel-ish thoughts the other day, I began to wonder if
Perl6's classes could go beyond the simple private/public/protected
scheme by optionally allowing for a property or method to only be
accessed by a certain set
While thinking Eiffel-ish thoughts the other day, I began to wonder if
Perl6's classes could go beyond the simple private/public/protected
scheme by optionally allowing for a property or method to only be
accessed by a certain set of classes. For instance(as I understand
Perl6 syntax):
On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 03:16 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Then you can declare them as such:
sub get_bar() { .bar }
sub get_baz() { .baz }
sub set_baz($newbaz) { .baz = $newbaz }
Seeing this, an idea mildly Eiffel-ish comes to mind. Could we get away
with something
On Friday, May 10, 2002, at 09:54 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
That's getting a little ugly, so maybe we'd lift the syntax from
Eiffel instead:
method set_baz($newbaz is like($.baz)) { $.baz = $newbaz }
This is exactly what went through my mind about a half second after I
posted the
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 01:22 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:07 PM -0400 4/30/02, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting
Celswhen ;-)
Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep,
elstry ...
Has anyone brought up
29 matches
Mail list logo
