Sam Vilain wrote:
TSa wrote:
is this subject not of interest? I just wanted to start a
discussion about the class composition process and how a
role designer can require the class to provide an equal
method and then augment it to achieve the correct behavior.
Contrast that with the need to do
On 10/2/06, Brad Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam Vilain wrote:
TSa wrote:
is this subject not of interest? I just wanted to start a
discussion about the class composition process and how a
role designer can require the class to provide an equal
method and then augment it to achieve the
Author: audreyt
Date: Mon Oct 2 07:45:13 2006
New Revision: 12561
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
* S06: Excise the word Multimethod in places where it also
referred to multisubs.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Brad Bowman wrote:
Hi,
Did you mean to go off list?
No, I didn't.
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Brad Bowman wrote:
Does the class GenSquare does GenEqual does GenPointMixin line imply
an ordering of class composition?
No. This was a conscious design decision: the order in which you
compose
Stevan Little wrote:
Brad Bowman wrote:
How does a Role require that the target class implement a method (or
do another Role)?
IIRC, it simply needs to provide a method stub, like so:
method bar { ... }
This will tell the class composer that this method must be created
before everything is
Twice now in the last week or so, I've run across suggestions to the
effect of including syntax that forbids otherwise valid code from
being used. First was during the discussion about coming up with a
way to program by contract, where the poster suggested that a means of
saying any declaration
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:26 AM, jerry gay wrote:
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
jerry gay wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
Hmm... granted. But that does tend to sidestep the main
On 2 Oct 2006, at 17:48, Jonathan Lang wrote:
The examples I gave involved specific roles or routines being
forbidden from use in certain situations; my gut instinct is that if
you don't think that it's appropriate to use a particular role or
routine somewhere, you should simply not use it
jerry gay writes:
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code.
Is there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
That's different:
Smylers wrote:
use strict;
That's different: it's _you_ that's forbidding things that are otherwise
legal in your code; you can choose whether to do it or not.
Which suggests that the people wanting to specify the restrictions are
actually asking for a way to specify additional strictures
Dave Whipp wrote:
Smylers wrote:
use strict;
That's different: it's _you_ that's forbidding things that are otherwise
legal in your code; you can choose whether to do it or not.
Which suggests that the people wanting to specify the restrictions are
actually asking for a way to specify
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Before we start talking about how such a thing might be implemented,
I'd like to see a solid argument in favor of implementing it at all.
What benefit can be derived by letting a module specify additional
strictures for its users? Ditto for a role placing restrictions on
Dave Whipp wrote:
Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core strict
and warnings modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which core modules can
register module-specific strictures/warnings/diagnostics.
Question: if
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core strict
and warnings modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which core modules can
register module-specific
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 02:01:34PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Dave Whipp wrote:
: Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core strict
: and warnings modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
: rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which core modules can
:
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
This reminds me of the endless student proofs that trisect
On Monday 02 October 2006 08:58, Jonathan Lang wrote:
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to extend the syntax of roles so
that you could prepend a no on any declarative line, resulting in a
compilation error any time something composing that role attempts to
include the feature in question.
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This notion of exclusionary roles is an interesting one, though. I'd
like to hear about what kinds of situations would find this notion
useful; but for the moment, I'll take your word that such situations
exist and go from there.
Well to be
Jonathan Lang wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
On 10/2/06, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
you're so twelve
22 matches
Mail list logo
