[svn:perl6-synopsis] r14572 - doc/trunk/design/syn

Author: audreyt Date: Tue Aug 5 02:43:49 2008 New Revision: 14572 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod Log: * Typo spotted by John M. Dlugosz++: method close is export () { ... } # Wrong method close () is export { ... } # Right Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod ===

Re: syntax question: "method close is export ()"

John M. Dlugosz 提到: Does that mean that traits can come before the signature? Or should it be corrected to method close () is export { ... } It's a simple typo. Thanks, fixed in r14572. Cheers, Audrey

[svn:perl6-synopsis] r14571 - doc/trunk/design/syn

Author: audreyt Date: Tue Aug 5 02:38:33 2008 New Revision: 14571 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod Log: * S02: A few more C<...> an C<<...>> blocks, Contributed by John M. Dlugosz++. Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod

Class Name Question

In S12, "So when you say "Dog", you're referring to both a package and a protoobject, that latter of which points to the actual object representing the class via HOW." Does that mean that the object referred to by Dog "does" both roles? In that case "the latter" is confusing wording. Or doe

Re: Edits to submit

Audrey Tang 提到: However, in S02 you removed the Code class and replaced it with Routine, but that does not really work; for example, a bare block is a Code, but it cannot be a Routine since it can't be wrapped in place, and caller() would bypass it when considering caller frames. I should've

syntax question: "method close is export ()"

Does that mean that traits can come before the signature? Or should it be corrected to method close () is export { ... } ?

Re: Edits to submit

John M. Dlugosz 提到: I've edited several of the S??.pod files,but I have not heard back from the owner ($Larry, whose name is on the top of the file) about accepting merging or rejecting my changes. I've posted the files to so they don't get lost, unti

Re: Edits to submit - Routine/Callable

Audrey Tang audreyt-at-audreyt.org |Perl 6| wrote: Audrey Tang 提到: However, in S02 you removed the Code class and replaced it with Routine, but that does not really work; for example, a bare block is a Code, but it cannot be a Routine since it can't be wrapped in place, and caller() would bypa

A few multiple dispatch questions

Hi, I am currently reviewing bits of the spec surrounding multiple dispatch and, of course, have a question or two (I'll probably have some more later, as the dust settles in my head). 1) The spec says: -- A proto also adds an implicit multi to all routines of the same short name within its

Re: new article, "A Romp Through Infinity"

HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: Please let me know if you see any coding errors, and of course any feedback is welcome. Firstly, shouldn't there also be infinite strings? E.g. 'ab' x Inf is a regularly infinite string and ~pi as well. Other classes might have elaborate notions of infinity. The C

Re: A few multiple dispatch questions

HaloO, Jonathan Worthington wrote: Does the "veto" take place once the multiple dispatch has given us a candidate and we try to bind the parameters to the signature, or as part of the multiple dispatch? For example, supposing I declare: multi foo(Int $a;; Num $b) { ... } # 1 multi foo(Int $a;

Re: A few multiple dispatch questions

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:17:30PM +0200, Jonathan Worthington wrote: > Hi, > > I am currently reviewing bits of the spec surrounding multiple dispatch > and, of course, have a question or two (I'll probably have some more > later, as the dust settles in my head). > > 1) The spec says: > > -- >

Re: A few multiple dispatch questions

On Tuesday 05 August 2008 12:01:29 Larry Wall wrote: > I believe "veto" is giving the wrong idea here as something that > happens after the fact.  What's the term for only allowing "acceptable" > candidates to put their names on the ballot? "disenfranchise" -- c

Re: A few multiple dispatch questions

On Tuesday 05 August 2008 15:25:47 Bob Rogers wrote: >On Tuesday 05 August 2008 12:01:29 Larry Wall wrote: >> I believe "veto" is giving the wrong idea here as something that >> happens after the fact.  What's the term for only allowing >> "acceptable" candidates to put their names