I wrote up a summary and some notes and posted at
http://www.dlugosz.com/Perl6/web/code.html.
Can we come to a definitive statement of the Callable/Code/Block/Routine
types, relative to the hints that are in the synopses thus far?
What I would like to do is get a consensus to write this up
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: We're still discussing it on @Larry, but I think we can make that work.
Well, now I think .foo() won't work, since .foo should be reserved
for a sub ref attribute to be consistent. But I think all we have
to do is find some other
Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: We're still discussing it on @Larry, but I think we can make that work.
Sorry if I don't know, but where or what is @Larry?
I guess some IRC?
Well, now I think .foo() won't work, since .foo should be reserved
for a
Thomas Sandla writes:
Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: We're still discussing it on @Larry, but I think we can make that work.
Sorry if I don't know, but where or what is @Larry?
Ahh, you came in too late. I don't remember who coined it, but
Luke Palmer wrote:
Ahh, you came in too late. I don't remember who coined it, but @Larry
is the array of Larrys, that is, the design team.
Aha. What does [EMAIL PROTECTED] evaluate to? How do the elements of
@Larry communicate?
I agree with you there. $Larry has said that he wants `when` to
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 05:33, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
BTW, what does $.foo outside of class scope mean?
It means:
BEGIN { die Can't use \$.foo outside of class scope; }
That contradicts $Larry's statement: By the way, this probably goes along
with a policy of
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:59:19AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I like the idea that $.foo ALWAYS means the $.foo in the current class.
: Anything else gets very ugly later on.
Well, since I'm not going with for self, I'm probably not going with
the $.foo meaning anything outside of the class
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:07, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:59:19AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: On a side note about auto-accessors, if I say:
:
: class X {
: has $.foo;
: }
: class Y is X {
: has %.foo;
: }
:
: What happens to
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:29:22AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:07, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:59:19AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
:
: : On a side note about auto-accessors, if I say:
: :
: : class X {
: : has $.foo;
: : }
: :
On May 3, 2005, at 00:04 , Luke Palmer wrote:
I agree with you there. $Larry has said that he wants `when` to work
Shouldn't that be @Larry[0]?
Cheers,
David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:00:49AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
: On May 3, 2005, at 00:04 , Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: I agree with you there. $Larry has said that he wants `when` to work
:
: Shouldn't that be @Larry[0]?
That depends on whether you think the rest of them are pushy or shiftless.
HaloO,
I don't know if this is usefull and if it is were this information
should be put. I've reworked the Code class chart from A06 to look
as follows:
invocant(s) : Code
_ :__ ___|___
| |: | |
SubMethod Method : Sub
Hi,
Thomas Sandla wrote:
the main reason for this mail: aliasing $_ in methods to the first
invocant would badly mix these two concepts!
I think so, too.
I'd like to see:
$.foo# attribute of $?SELF
@.foo# ditto
%.foo# ditto
.foo# method of $?SELF
.foo#
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:22:03PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
.foo# method of $?SELF
.foo# method of $?SELF
$_.foo# method of $_
We could also define them as:
.foo # method on $?SELF
.foo# method on $_
$_.foo # method on $_
The .foo syntax is
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:29:49PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:22:03PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: .foo# method of $?SELF
: .foo# method of $?SELF
: $_.foo# method of $_
:
: We could also define them as:
:
: .foo # method on $?SELF
15 matches
Mail list logo
