Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:48:27AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nope. fields::new() basically just does Cbless
[\%{"$class\::FIELDS"}], $class, but the current pseudohash
implementation doesn't
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:19:38PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
package Dog;
use fields qw(this night up);
my Dog $ph = [];
$ph-{this} = "that";
That works? I thought you
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers wrote:
I'm kind of tempted to look at adding another pragma to go with 'use
base' along the lines of:
use implements 'Interface';
Which is almost entirely like Cuse base 'Interface' but with
'Interface'
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:48:27AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nope. fields::new() basically just does Cbless
[\%{"$class\::FIELDS"}], $class, but the current pseudohash
implementation doesn't care if something is an object or not. It just
Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Cmy Dog $spot is just an assertion
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13th September 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL
Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
I therefore propose that Cmy Dog $spot comes to mean that C$spot
is restricted to being either undefined or a reference to a CDog
object (or any subclasses of Dog). Simply having this implicit
assertion can be
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:43:43PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
The behaviour of the my Dog $spot syntax should simply be an
assertion of the invariant:
(!defined($spot) || (ref($spot) $spot-isa('Dog)))
What about the current
Piers Cawley writes:
TBH, I'm not sure I want to go too far down that road in this RFC. And
tbh they seem more like internals issues to me. The runtime behaviour
this change grants is good enough for me and I don't want to see the
proposal bogged down in flamage about strict types. Of course,
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:19:38PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
package Dog;
use fields qw(this night up);
my Dog $ph = [];
$ph-{this} = "that";
That works? I thought you had to do:
my Dog $self =
Piers wrote:
I'm kind of tempted to look at adding another pragma to go with 'use
base' along the lines of:
use implements 'Interface';
Which is almost entirely like Cuse base 'Interface' but with
'Interface' consisting of nothing but:
At 08:13 AM 9/15/00 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Piers wrote:
I'm kind of tempted to look at adding another pragma to go with 'use
base' along the lines of:
use implements 'Interface';
Which is almost entirely like Cuse base 'Interface' but with
'Interface'
I was hoping Damian would be able to suggest a Perlish way of handling
typechecking and polymorphism.
If you mean static typechecking, then it is the natural enemy of polymorphism.
Either you give up interface polymorphism (a grievous loss) or you give
up static type-checking.
Damian Conway writes:
Either you give up interface polymorphism (a grievous loss) or you give
up static type-checking.
Blech, you're right.
Actually, it's inheritance polymorphism that proliferates pretend classes
like Pet.
I meant that. Sorry, you're so in tune with Perl that I'm
13 matches
Mail list logo
