Re: grammar for 'constant' ?

2008-05-04 Thread Moritz Lenz 
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
 The synopses are contradictary over the way 'constant' works.  First it says 
 that it is a declarator like 'my'. 

That's what STD.pm says:

token scope_declarator:my   { sym scoped {*} }
token scope_declarator:our  { sym scoped {*} }
token scope_declarator:state{ sym scoped {*} }
token scope_declarator:constant { sym scoped {*} }
token scope_declarator:has  { sym scoped {*} }


 Then in S12 it shows
 
   my constant ...
 and
   our constant ...
 
 that is, independant from the my or our declarator.  

I grep'ped STD.pm tentatively for other occurrences of 'constant', and
couldn't find where that should be implemented.

 Assuming the second way is newer/better, what is the grammar for this?  Is it 
 a declarator if used on its own, or a different category?
 
 Oh, and should it still say that if you leave off the optional 'my' or 'our' 
 that it defaults to 'my', or should it be 'our' like everything else?
 
 --John


-- 
Moritz Lenz
http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ |  http://perl-6.de/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: grammar for 'constant' ?

2008-05-04 Thread John M. Dlugosz 

Moritz Lenz moritz-at-casella.verplant.org |Perl 6| wrote:



Then in S12 it shows

  my constant ...
and
  our constant ...

that is, independant from the my or our declarator.  



I grep'ped STD.pm tentatively for other occurrences of 'constant', and
couldn't find where that should be implemented.
  



Thanks.  I checked S12 again and could not find that example.  Maybe my 
mistake from when I took notes the first time.


So, let's talk about the semantics of constant.

It's natural to want to export them from classes or modules.  So, the 
description of them being just like my is incomplete.  I propose 
allowing that to be true as far as it goes, but describing the meaning 
of adding is export to the declaration as well.


--John

grammar for 'constant' ?

2008-05-03 Thread John M. Dlugosz 
The synopses are contradictary over the way 'constant' works.  First it says 
that it is a declarator like 'my'.  Then in S12 it shows

  my constant ...
and
  our constant ...

that is, independant from the my or our declarator.  

Assuming the second way is newer/better, what is the grammar for this?  Is it a 
declarator if used on its own, or a different category?

Oh, and should it still say that if you leave off the optional 'my' or 'our' 
that it defaults to 'my', or should it be 'our' like everything else?

--John