Perl 6 has some more interesting capabilities for lexical scoped
hinting of tradeoff preferences. For example:
use less precision; # the default nums created in this scope are
# lower precision floats
use less cpu; # many places this can have a desired effect
use l
Luke Palmer wrote:
Unless the caller can't see the signature, as is the case with methods.
[..]
Again, this can't be done unless you know the signature. And in fact,
we can't do type inference on methods unless we do type inference
everywhere, which we can't do if we want an autoloader.
This sound
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:20 +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> Perl 6 has some more interesting capabilities for lexical scoped
> hinting of tradeoff preferences. For example:
>
> use less precision; # the default nums created in this scope are
> # lower precision floats
>
> use less
Aaaron~
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:48:55 -0500, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:20 +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> > Perl 6 has some more interesting capabilities for lexical scoped
> > hinting of tradeoff preferences. For example:
> >
> > use less precision; #
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:56:58 -0500, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:48:55 -0500, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > use less syntax;
> Back out the entire p6 grammar and put in lisp's instead...
Huh. I suppose that's the only difference these days..
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 16:00 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Unless the caller can't see the signature, as is the case with methods.
I need to understand this piece.
In this code:
class X {
method meth() {...}
}
class Y is X {
method meth() is
Aaron Sherman writes:
> On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 16:00 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > Unless the caller can't see the signature, as is the case with methods.
>
> I need to understand this piece.
>
> In this code:
>
> class X {
> method meth() {...}
> }
> class Y is
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 09:40:26AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: There _is_ a way to do it, actually, but we need to really screw around
: with what kinds of things are inferred. In the case:
:
: my $a;
: $a.m(1);
:
: We assign the type "objects with an 'm' method that can take a single
:
HaloO Luke,
you wrote:
No, I think I agree with you here. But what happens if you change
you're second-to-last line to:
my $a = foo();
$a.meth() = 8;
Perl 6 is both a statically typed language and a dynamically typed
language, and the problems that I am addressing are mostly about the
dyna
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:40, Luke Palmer wrote:
> No, I think I agree with you here. But what happens if you change
> you're second-to-last line to:
>
> my $a = foo();
> $a.meth() = 8;
>
> Perl 6 is both a statically typed language and a dynamically typed
> language, and the problems th
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> And of course the builtin functionality and the packages available
> from CPAN save the typical small scale programmer from extensive
> declarations. But to use a complex module you have to read
> documentation to get the idea to call .meth() in the first place.
> And then
Larry Wall wrote:
I think it's perfectly fine for the compiler to make use of whatever
information it has. The trick is to never make any unwarranted
assumptions, such as "Nobody will ever add another class with an 'm'
method."
Er, isn't that not just the wrong way around? The point is to do the
b
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 13:17, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
> HaloO Luke,
>
> you wrote:
> > No, I think I agree with you here. But what happens if you change
> > you're second-to-last line to:
> >
> > my $a = foo();
> > $a.meth() = 8;
> >
> > Perl 6 is both a statically typed language and a dyn
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 13:53, Luke Palmer wrote:
> class CodeProxy {
> has Code $.code is rw;
> sub call ($a) {
> $.code($a);
> }
> }
> This is valid Perl 6, and anyone who says otherwise (because of type
> signatures) is changing the Perl philosophy too
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 12:05:12PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: If I understand you correctly the use statement is more like a
: linker/loader directive than a compile time interface include?
That is up to the module being used. "use" is a linker, but it's
only required to link enough informati
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:29 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> What I do not think should be allowed (and I may be contradicting Larry
> here, which I realize is taking my life in my hands ;) is violating the
> compile-time view of the "static" type tree. That is, you can load an
> object "foo" at run-
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:57, chromatic wrote:
> I certainly plan to continue to instrument code at runtime (and not just
> really slushy, partially slushy, and permafrost compile time).
That's FINE, and no one should stop you!
What I was referring to was only the items that an interface definiti
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 15:27 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Like I said, if you allow run-time munging of the type interfaces, then
> you can't tell if this is valid or invalid:
>
> my X $a;
> $a.m(1);
>
> you have to allow it always, regardless of the definition of X. In fact,
> you c
Luke Palmer wrote:
class CodeProxy {
has Code $.code is rw;
sub call ($a) {
$.code($a);
}
}
This is valid Perl 6,
Hmm, a sub in a class? I guess that should be a method. OTOH a
class is just a funny module, so might be OK. But that is the
syntax realm.
a
chromatic wrote:
A compiler that assumes incorrectly and disallows programmers to do
useful things because its holds those assumptions as precious is wrong
-- especially in cases where even the programmer can't tell if code is
valid or invalid until the program actually runs.
Me neither. One should
Aaron Sherman wrote:
No, that was most of the point. &foo did not declare a return type, and
while my code was simplistic, we obviously cannot be certain what &foo
might return in the general case.
Sorry that I've spoiled that. But I wonder if it's just in the examples
here on the list or a general
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> >No, that was most of the point. &foo did not declare a return type, and
> >while my code was simplistic, we obviously cannot be certain what &foo
> >might return in the general case.
>
> Sorry that I've spoiled that. But I wonder if it's just in the
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >class CodeProxy {
> >has Code $.code is rw;
> >sub call ($a) {
> >$.code($a);
> >}
> >}
> >
> >This is valid Perl 6,
>
> Hmm, a sub in a class? I guess that should be a method. OTOH a
> class is just a funny
Aaron Sherman writes:
> What I do not think should be allowed (and I may be contradicting
> Larry here, which I realize is taking my life in my hands ;) is
> violating the compile-time view of the "static" type tree.
That sentence is getting pretty C++-derived-like, which Perl is hardly
anymore.
Aaron Sherman writes:
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 13:53, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > class CodeProxy {
> > has Code $.code is rw;
> > sub call ($a) {
> > $.code($a);
> > }
> > }
>
> > This is valid Perl 6, and anyone who says otherwise (because of type
> > sig
Aaron Sherman writes:
> > Please think carefully about how dynamic you want Perl 6 to be
> > > Dynamic is good, but there's such a thing as too much of a good thing.
> >
> > We'd like Perl 6 to be as dynamic as Perl 5.
>
> We'd think that is impossible. Perl 5 had full control of the
> run-ti
According to Luke Palmer:
> [Perl 5] had to construct lvalues out of all arguments (for which
> that made sense) because the sub might modify them.
No, actually, that wasn't the reason. Perl 5 passes all values by
implicit mutable reference because it's faster, not because it's
better. I suspect
Luke Palmer wrote:
Okay, now we're starting to talk past each other. I /think/ Thomas
orignially suggested that we use type inference to determine whether to
lvalue cast an argument or not, which is what I got all worked up about.
Actually I was returning to the subject of co- or contravariance of
Thomas Sandlaà wrote:
Any might just be a glb (greatest upper bound) of Int and Str, written
Sorry that should read lub (least upper bound). Glb means greatest lower
bound and is spelled Int&Str or all(Int,Str) in Perl6.
--
TSa (Thomas SandlaÃ)
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 17:09, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Aaron Sherman writes:
> > What I do not think should be allowed (and I may be contradicting
> > Larry here, which I realize is taking my life in my hands ;) is
> > violating the compile-time view of the "static" type tree.
>
> That sentence is ge
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 18:35 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> When the Perl 6 compiler sees:
>
> my X $a;
> $a.m(1);
>
> What should it do?
>
> Options:
>
> * Accept the method call regardless of the definition of X
> * Accept the method call if it matches the signature
31 matches
Mail list logo
