David Brunton wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote: replies snipped /
IMHO, the golden rule of programming languages should be: if you
need a namespace, create one.
Is there any reason these meta methods could not be part of some
default function package like Math::Basic and Math::Trig? The
package
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:20:31AM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
.META is more correct at the moment.
Does making it all upper caps really help? It's still a pollution of the
method space, any way that you look at it...
Yeah but perl has already
Aaron Sherman wrote:
replies snipped /
Is the goal to avoid namespace pollution? If so, shouldn't there be a
truly metaish way of getting at the internal namespace so that someone
doesn't accidentally render an object unusable by defining the wrong
method name (which you can prevent with an
Larry Wall wrote:
: There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies
$obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta.
.META is more correct at the moment.
Does making it all upper caps really help? It's still a pollution of the
method space, any way that you look
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:20:31AM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
: There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies
$obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta.
.META is more correct at the moment.
Does making it all upper caps really
Hi all,
There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies
$obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta.
Is there any reason I shouldn't change the tests from meta to META, make the
corresponding changes in Pugs.Prim, and then fix any other examples or modules
it
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:59:51AM -0700, David Brunton wrote:
: Hi all,
:
: There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies
$obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta.
.META is more correct at the moment.
: Is there any reason I shouldn't change the tests from
On 9/11/06, Larry Wall wrote:
Only that I'm thinking of renaming all the meta-ish methods to use
interrogative pronouns:
.META- .HOW
.SKID- .WHO
.PKG - .WHAT
.VAR - .WHERE
.WHO and .WHAT strike me as better being swapped. Maybe...
or some such. Not sure
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:59:20AM -0600, David Green wrote:
: In that case, .WHO definitely makes more sense for the name.
I don't see it. Who I am is my identity. What I am is a Person or some such.
Larry
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:18:19AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: .PKG - .WHAT
I should have said
.ref- .WHAT
there, since it was the intention to rename .ref that brought all this
on in the first place. (And what you actually get from .WHAT is the
prototype object
10 matches
Mail list logo
