Re: Design of the "code" classes

Moritz Lenz moritz-at-casella.verplant.org |Perl 6| wrote: I think what the discussion is missing that there Regexes are also Callable (I think so, at least). Yes, you are right. S05 says that a named regex is an object of type Method actually. They are just another syntax for writing Rules.

Re: Design of the "code" classes

John M. Dlugosz wrote: > I wrote up a summary and some notes and posted at > . I think what the discussion is missing that there Regexes are also Callable (I think so, at least). Also I'm not sure that Routine actually isa Block, because a Block can be

Design of the "code" classes

I wrote up a summary and some notes and posted at . Can we come to a definitive statement of the Callable/Code/Block/Routine types, relative to the hints that are in the synopses thus far? What I would like to do is get a consensus to write this up

Re: Code classes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:00:49AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote: : On May 3, 2005, at 00:04 , Luke Palmer wrote: : : >I agree with you there. $Larry has said that he wants `when` to work : : Shouldn't that be @Larry[0]? That depends on whether you think the rest of them are pushy or shiftless. :-

Re: Code classes

On May 3, 2005, at 00:04 , Luke Palmer wrote: I agree with you there. $Larry has said that he wants `when` to work Shouldn't that be @Larry[0]? Cheers, David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Code classes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:29:22AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: : On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:07, Larry Wall wrote: : > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:59:19AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: : : > : On a side note about auto-accessors, if I say: : > : : > : class X { : > : has $.foo; : > : } :

Re: Code classes

On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:07, Larry Wall wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:59:19AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > : On a side note about auto-accessors, if I say: > : > : class X { > : has $.foo; > : } > : class Y is X { > : has %.foo; > : } > : > : What h

Re: Code classes

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:59:19AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: : I like the idea that $.foo ALWAYS means the $.foo in the current class. : Anything else gets very ugly later on. Well, since I'm not going with & for "self", I'm probably not going with the $.foo meaning anything outside of the class

Re: Code classes

On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 05:33, Thomas Sandlaß wrote: > Luke Palmer wrote: > >>BTW, what does $.foo outside of class scope mean? > > It means: > > BEGIN { die "Can't use \$.foo outside of class scope"; } > > That contradicts $Larry's statement: "By the way, this probably goes along > with a

Re: Code classes

Luke Palmer wrote: Ahh, you came in too late. I don't remember who coined it, but @Larry is the array of Larrys, that is, the design team. Aha. What does [EMAIL PROTECTED] evaluate to? How do the elements of @Larry communicate? I agree with you there. $Larry has said that he wants `when` to work

Re: Code classes

Thomas Sandlaà writes: > Larry Wall wrote: > >On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > >: We're still discussing it on @Larry, but I think we can make that work. > > Sorry if I don't know, but where or what is @Larry? Ahh, you came in too late. I don't remember who coined it

Re: Code classes

Larry Wall wrote: On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : We're still discussing it on @Larry, but I think we can make that work. Sorry if I don't know, but where or what is @Larry? I guess some IRC? Well, now I think &.foo() won't work, since &.foo should be reserved for a s

Re: Code classes

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : We're still discussing it on @Larry, but I think we can make that work. Well, now I think &.foo() won't work, since &.foo should be reserved for a sub ref attribute to be consistent. But I think all we have to do is find some other cha

Re: Code classes

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:29:49PM +0300, wolverian wrote: : On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:22:03PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote: : > &.foo# method of $?SELF : > .foo# method of $?SELF : >$_.foo# method of $_ : : We could also define them as: : : &.foo # method on $?S

Re: Code classes

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:22:03PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote: > &.foo# method of $?SELF > .foo# method of $?SELF >$_.foo# method of $_ We could also define them as: &.foo # method on $?SELF .foo# method on $_ $_.foo # method on $_ The .foo syntax

Re: Code classes

Hi, Thomas Sandlaà wrote: > the main reason for this mail: aliasing $_ in methods to the first > invocant would badly mix these two concepts! I think so, too. I'd like to see: $.foo# attribute of $?SELF @.foo# ditto %.foo# ditto &.foo# method of $?SELF .foo

Code classes

HaloO, I don't know if this is usefull and if it is were this information should be put. I've reworked the Code class chart from A06 to look as follows: invocant(s) : Code _ :__ ___|___ | |: | | SubMethod Method : SubBlock