HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:27:00AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Or maybe Any really does mean "Object" and we're just viewing our
hierarchy too strictly if we make every relationship "isa". That's one
thing that neither this formulation nor Thomas's are making very
cle
Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>> I dunno. I'm inclined to say that it should default to Item|Pair, and
>> let people say Any explicitly if they really want to suppress autothreading.
>> Otherwise conditionals and switches a
> FWIW, I've been reading up on Scala's formulation of trait/class/delegation
> hierarchy, and I feel a bit like flipping through a puzzle book to look
> at the hints, if not answers. :-)
>
> http://scala.epfl.ch/docu/files/api/index.html
I misread "mutable" as "mumble" and thought they'd be
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 05:59:43AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> I can see marking things explicitly for named bindings:
>
> foo(:literal);
> foo(*%nameds);
> foo(*$pair);
> foo([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
Er, sorry, the last one should be
foo(*%{ hash @list_of_pairs });
Thanks,
/
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:27:00AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Or maybe Any really does mean "Object" and we're just viewing our
> hierarchy too strictly if we make every relationship "isa". That's one
> thing that neither this formulation nor Thomas's are making very
> clear--which type relations
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:31:46AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 03:55:55AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: > Hrm. I thought the original motivation of forcing people to write
: >
: > Any|Junction
: >
: > was precisely to discourage people from accidentally write
: >
:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 00:26:27 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> Er, but Junctions take methods, the same way Objects do, so if there is
> an Object in the type hierarchy, Junction probably belongs to it.
Maybe there is a role called 'Junctive'? I think junctions are
orthogonal to other types, excep
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
: Since we are in type hierachies these days, here's my from ::Any
: towards ::All version.
That's pretty, but if you don't move Junction upward, you haven't
really addressed the question Autrijus is asking
At 10:32 PM + 7/27/05, David Formosa \(aka ? the Platypus\) wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:17:52 -0700, Mark A. Biggar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
Whatever we call
it, this type/class/role/subtype has to admit Item and Pair objects
but not Junctions. (And if t
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:17:52 -0700, Mark A. Biggar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
>> Whatever we call
>> it, this type/class/role/subtype has to admit Item and Pair objects
>> but not Junctions. (And if that's the wrong way to think about it,
>> please tell us why.)
>
> S
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 03:55:55AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> Hrm. I thought the original motivation of forcing people to write
>
> Any|Junction
>
> was precisely to discourage people from accidentally write
>
> sub foo (Any $x)
>
> and have $x accept a Junction. In other words, an
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:19:10PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
: While we are talking about words... I dislike having Object encompass
: Juction. I get the feeling that some people will write functions that
: take Objects and not expect Junctions to slip in. I suppose that
: could be one of those h
At 9:12 AM -0700 7/27/05, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes. The only thing I don't like about it is that any() isn't an Any.
Maybe we should rename Any to Atom. Then maybe swap Item with Atom,
since in colloquial English you can say "that pair of people are
an item." That would give us:
- Object
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:12:00AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Yes. The only thing I don't like about it is that any() isn't an Any.
> - Object
> - Mumble
> - Item
> - ...pretty much everything
> - Pair
> - Junction
> - num, int, str...
Hrm.
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
: Since we are in type hierachies these days, here's my from ::Any
: towards ::All version.
That's pretty, but if you don't move Junction upward, you haven't
really addressed the question Autrijus is asking
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
: Since we are in type hierachies these days, here's my from ::Any
: towards ::All version.
That's pretty, but if you don't move Junction upward, you haven't
really addressed the question Autrijus is asking. We're looking
for
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
Yes. The only thing I don't like about it is that any() isn't an Any.
Maybe we should rename Any to Atom. Then maybe swap Item with Atom,
since in colloquial English you can say "that pair of people are
an item."
Since we are in type hierachies these days, here's my
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:19:10PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
> While we are talking about words... I dislike having Object encompass
> Juction. I get the feeling that some people will write functions that
> take Objects and not expect Junctions to slip in. I suppose that
> could be one of those h
Larry~
On 7/27/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:01:25PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> : On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > I dunno. I'm inclined to say that it should default to Item|Pair, and
> : > let people say Any explicitly
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:01:25PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > I dunno. I'm inclined to say that it should default to Item|Pair, and
: > let people say Any explicitly if they really want to suppress autothreading.
: > Otherwise cond
20 matches
Mail list logo
