Bob Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) is there a MultiSub object with one short name that holds all
possible long names (and function references)?
If yes, who is creating it: the Perl6 compiler emits code to do so or
it's up to Parrot
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Discussion seems to have went off into esoteric cases of locally
overriden dispatcher policies and what not.
I don't think it's as esoteric as you might think. Consider:
package Foo;
use MMD::Random;
our bar is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. If you'd really need such random dispatch, it could be done like
this, when I interpret A12 correctly:
sub run_random_bar($x) {
my @meths = WALKMETH($x, :method('bar'));
my $meth = @meths[rand(@meths.elems)];
$meth($x);
}
or even with
my sub bar($x)
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Ok. If you'd really need such random dispatch, it could be done like
this, when I interpret A12 correctly:
sub run_random_bar($x) {
my @meths = WALKMETH($x, :method('bar'));
my $meth = @meths[rand(@meths.elems)];
$meth($x);
}
or even with
my sub bar($x) {...}
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I were to need a different policy for a given method .bar, I would
likely create something called .bar much like your run_random_bar,
which then dispatches amongst methods I name something like ._bar .
I see some detractions to this approach:
1) Users
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I were to need a different policy for a given method .bar, I would
likely create something called .bar much like your run_random_bar,
which then dispatches amongst methods I name something like ._bar .
I see some detractions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would behave like a tied sub (or method), with a .dispatch method
to decide which of the contained routines should be called this
particular time. Manhattan would be the default. However, one can
override the dispatch logic; implementing Luke's Patterns idea, for
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that there are several advantages to making a group of
multi with the same short name a single object, of type
MultiSub|MultiMethod, which internally holds references to the all the
various routines that share that short name.
Discussion seems
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:38:52PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
There lingers the case of:
use Foo; # from above, exports bar is MMD::Random
multi sub bar {...}
Does this generate an error, since one could expect this particular bar
to be Manhattan? Or does it assume Random, since
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about multi subs? They can be defined everywhere. Given:
multi sub *foo(A $a, B $b) {...}
Is this something like:
%globals{foo} -- MultiSub{foo_A_B = Sub, ...}
What about a not so global multi:
multi sub foo(A $a, B $b) {...}
Thanks for clarifying,
leo
Uh, the
David Storrs wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:38:52PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
There lingers the case of:
use Foo; # from above, exports bar is MMD::Random
multi sub bar {...}
Does this generate an error, since one could expect this particular bar
to be Manhattan? Or does it assume
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that there are several advantages to making a group of
multi with the same short name a single object, of type
MultiSub|MultiMethod, which internally holds references to the all the
various routines that share that short
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:22:20PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:38:52PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
use Foo; # from above, exports bar is MMD::Random
multi sub bar {...}
Does this generate an error, since one could expect this particular bar
to be
Rod Adams wrote:
It seems to me that there are several advantages to making a group of
multi with the same short name a single object, of type
MultiSub|MultiMethod, which internally holds references to the all the
various routines that share that short name.
It doesn't have to be junctive
Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
Rod Adams wrote:
It seems to me that there are several advantages to making a group of
multi with the same short name a single object, of type
MultiSub|MultiMethod, which internally holds references to the all
the various routines that share that short name.
It doesn't
Rod Adams writes:
I wasn't intending it to be junctive. I was just noting that you needed
separate holders for subs and methods, since you shouldn't be able to
stuff a method into a multi sub.
Keep in mind that the two following definitions are equivalent:
class A { method foo () {...}
Luke Palmer wrote:
Keep in mind that the two following definitions are equivalent:
class A { method foo () {...} }
multi sub foo (A $a) {...}
Except for attribute access, I think.
For public attrs the accessor is not used and private ones are available:
class A
{
has $.pub = pub;
has
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:19:25AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I was thinking more along the lines of :
:
:use MMD::Pattern;
:
:our func is MMD::Pattern;
:
:multi func (...) {...}
:multi func (... ...) {...}
:multi func (... ... ...) {...}
:
:multi func2 (...) {...}
:
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:19:25AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I was thinking more along the lines of :
:
:use MMD::Pattern;
:
:our func is MMD::Pattern;
:
:multi func (...) {...}
:multi func (... ...) {...}
:multi func (... ... ...) {...}
:
:multi func2
19 matches
Mail list logo
