TSa wrote:
:Pair%Hash
$Item@Array
Here I forget to mention the beautiful symmetry:
| arity
access | 1| 0..Inf
---+---+-
keyed | :Pair | %Hash
positional | $Item | @Array
Regards,
--
$TSa.greeting := "HaloO"; # mind the echo!
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:47:49PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: >defined($spot); # false!?
:
: true! Even for my $spot = ::Dog because when my is evaluated the
: name ::Dog has be be bound, AUTOLOADED or by whatever means become
: available.
What does binding have to
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:47:49PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: >defined($spot); # false!?
:
: true! Even for my $spot = ::Dog because when my is evaluated the
: name ::Dog has be be bound, AUTOLOADED or by whatever means become
: available.
What does binding have to do with definedness? In Perl 6 t
HaloO,
Stuart Cook wrote:
On the other hand, there are other things that don't work quite so well:
my Dog $spot;
$spot.can('bark');# Not until he's instantiated...
Are you objecting to the fact that it can't possibly return a valid
method, or that it will inappropriately true/false (
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:47:49PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> OK, let's play some manual type inferencing ;)
Note that $spot here is intended to be dynamic typed, i.e. not subject
to inference. :-)
> >my $spot = Dog;
>
> $spot.does(Item of Dog), that means what ever the name Dog represents
> was s
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
What about this?
OK, let's play some manual type inferencing ;)
my $spot = Dog;
$spot.does(Item of Dog), that means what ever the name Dog represents
was stored or bound to $spot.
defined($spot); # false!?
true! Even for my $spot = ::Dog because
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:53:47PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
> On 11/08/05, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One that you missed was that this syntax:
> >
> >my Dog $spot .=new();
> >
> > Falls out of it quite naturally.
>
> Actually I tried to mention that indirectly,
On 11/08/05, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One that you missed was that this syntax:
>
>my Dog $spot .=new();
>
> Falls out of it quite naturally.
Actually I tried to mention that indirectly, but I'm glad you
explicitly mentioned it.
> On the other hand, there are ot
Stuart Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/08/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll have to think about the rest of your proposal, but I was suddenly
> > struck with the thought that our "platonic" Class objects are really
> > forms of undef:
> >
> > say defined IO; # prints 0
