HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:29:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: my Dog $spot = .new();
:
: to
:
: my $Spot = Dog.new();
:
: when you remove the declaration.
You'd also break multiple dispatch rather badly...
Sorry, why that? Isn't the dispatch on the dynamic
HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Type checking in both js2/ecma4 and p6 is not merely documentation.
It is enforced, but only if present. This is a tricky thing to
achieve, which is why I suggested reading the js stuff to see how they
went about it.
I like the 'like' operator that does a
HaloO,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should look at Common Lisp. it's definition of optional typing
is that if you take a correct program and remove all the type
declarations, then it still works correctly, although it may be
significantly less efficient. Larry and i have discussed this and
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 09:24:47AM +0200, TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:29:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: my Dog $spot = .new();
: : to
: : my $Spot = Dog.new();
: : when you remove the declaration.
You'd also break multiple dispatch rather
HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
It would behoove @Larry to examine the optional type constraints
system proposed for Javascript:TNG (see link from firefox.com
developers page). I therefore assume that they have done so, but
others would benefit by doing likewise. :)
Do I get that right: you imply
Thom Boyer thom-at-boyers.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
It would behoove @Larry to examine the optional type constraints
system proposed for Javascript:TNG (see link from firefox.com
developers page). I therefore assume that they have done so, but
others would benefit by doing
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
I found two dissertations and a couple of papers about typing
JavaScript. The quintessential is that optional typing is
defined as having *no* impact on the dynamic behavior of the
program. In that respect type annotations are like comments.
I
On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:44 , TSa wrote:
I found two dissertations and a couple of papers about typing
JavaScript. The quintessential is that optional typing is
defined as having *no* impact on the dynamic behavior of the
program. In that respect type annotations are like comments.
I doubt that
Type checking in both js2/ecma4 and p6 is not merely documentation.
It is enforced, but only if present. This is a tricky thing to
achieve, which is why I suggested reading the js stuff to see how they
went about it.
On 4/16/08, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16,
You should look at Common Lisp. it's definition of optional typing is that
if you take a correct program and remove all the type declarations, then it
still works correctly, although it may be significantly less efficient. Larry
and i have discussed this and that was his goai in Perl. Now
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:29:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: You should look at Common Lisp. it's definition of optional typing is that
if you take a correct program and remove all the type declarations, then it
still works correctly, although it may be significantly less efficient.
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
This needs to be fleshed out. Decisions need to be made.
Anyone want to discuss it with me?
I want to. But give me time. Meanwhile you could read
e.g. http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~ajhs/classify/index.html.
This deals with F-bounded polymorphism in a tutorial
It would behoove @Larry to examine the optional type constraints
system proposed for Javascript:TNG (see link from firefox.com
developers page). I therefore assume that they have done so, but
others would benefit by doing likewise. :)
On 4/15/08, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
John M.
I apologize for the vagueness; I was away from browser when I sent
that. Go to http://www.ecmascript.org for the nitty gritty on
ECMAScript 4th Edition, a.k.a. JavaScript 2, which is what I was
talking about. White papers, specs, reference interpreter.
The link from the Firefox developers page
Mark J. Reed wrote:
It would behoove @Larry to examine the optional type constraints
system proposed for Javascript:TNG (see link from firefox.com
developers page). I therefore assume that they have done so, but
others would benefit by doing likewise. :)
Could you be a little more specific
I posted my thoughts as a sort of white paper here:
http://www.dlugosz.com/files/static-type.pdf
This needs to be fleshed out. Decisions need to be made. Anyone want to
discuss it with me?
--John
16 matches
Mail list logo
