On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:12:44 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I like the class Vehicle is interface as a shorthand for declaring every
method of a class to be an interface.
Perhaps associating a property with a class can be shorthand for associating
that property with every method of the
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 06:17:37PM -0400, Daniel B. Boorstein wrote:
I think there may be some confusion here. In java, there's no special syntax
to declare a method an optional part of the interface. All concrete classes
that implement the Collection interface still must define full-bodied
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 11:57:51PM -0400, Noah White wrote:
I wouldn't call it a dirty little secret as Michael put it :-).
This is the right thing to do within the context of a contract. The
contract does not guarantee that method functionality implemented by a
concrete class
In a message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Michael G Schwern writes:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 06:17:37PM -0400, Daniel B. Boorstein wrote:
I think there may be some confusion here. In java, there's no special syntax
to declare a method an optional part of the interface. All concrete classes
that
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 05:03:26PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
It really ought to be one of those sure you can do this, but please don't
things.
It's a RuntimeException. You can't require that all RuntimeExceptions be
declared if thrown;
snip
You can subclass RuntimeException. So if Sun
On 6 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: Do parens still provide list context on the left side of an assignment?
Er, kind of. More precisely, use of parens on the left provides a
flattening list context on the right side, just as in Perl 5. I guess
I did not make clear that a basic Perl 6 design
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
: In a message dated Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Noah White writes:
: On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 01:50 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
:
: Parens don't construct lists EVER! They only group elements
: syntactically. One common use of parens is to surround a
:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Larry Wall:
: I suppose we could make comma merely puke in scalar context rather
: than DWIM, at least optionally.
:
: I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
Most of the uses of which are actually in void context, where it
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 12:40 PM -0700 9/26/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
: Is that sufficiently vague?
:
: Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
: broad side of that semantic barn...
:
: The
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
:
: On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: perl6 operator precedence
:
: leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
: left. and unary .
:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: I'm trying to write a revised operator precedence table for perl6,
: similar to the one in perlop.pod.
:
: This is what I have come up with based on Apocalypse 3 and Exegesis 3.
: Does anyone have comments? I'm not sure if the precedence
: for :
According to Larry Wall:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
Most of the uses of which are actually in void context [...]
I didn't realize you were distinguishing scalar from void in this, uh,
context. I agree that scalar comma is
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Apocalypse 4 mentions unary '?' . Since this is used to force boolean
: context, I would assume that it has the same precedence as unary '+' and
: '_' which force numeric and string context respectively. By the way, has
: anyone come up with a use
13 matches
Mail list logo
