Patrick (), Carl (), Patrick ():
But yes, I expect that it will be caught as
a compile-time error.
And do you agree it's reasonable to expect this of every compiler?
Reasonable to expect it, yes -- but whether or not this rises to the
level of being a requirement in the spec may be a
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
It's called overload resolution. Perl 6 can't do
that at compile time unless *all* targets are
available as rw and readonly variants.
I don't follow that statement. Can you give an example?
multi sub foo (Int
TSa ():
sub bar ($x)
{
$x = 3; # error, $x is readonly
foo($x); # error, could hit rw Str
}
By the way, I hope it's possible to make the assignment `$x = 3` to
the read-only variable $x a compile-time error.
In fact, I hope this to such a degree that I would like it to be part
of a
HaloO,
Carl Mäsak wrote:
By the way, I hope it's possible to make the assignment `$x = 3` to
the read-only variable $x a compile-time error.
I hope so, too. The variable and its read-only constraint
is known at compile time and *not* dependend on the value
inside. How it came in there in the
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0200, Carl Mäsak wrote:
TSa ():
sub bar ($x)
{
$x = 3; # error, $x is readonly
foo($x); # error, could hit rw Str
}
By the way, I hope it's possible to make the assignment `$x = 3` to
the read-only variable $x a compile-time error.
In
Pm ():
In Rakudo's case, we just haven't implemented read-only traits
on variables yet.
Goodie. I guessed as much.
But yes, I expect that it will be caught as
a compile-time error.
And do you agree it's reasonable to expect this of every compiler?
// Carl
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 05:09:31PM +0200, Carl Mäsak wrote:
Pm ():
In Rakudo's case, we just haven't implemented read-only traits
on variables yet.
Goodie. I guessed as much.
But yes, I expect that it will be caught as
a compile-time error.
And do you agree it's reasonable to
Carl Mäsak cmasak-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
Pm ():
In Rakudo's case, we just haven't implemented read-only traits
on variables yet.
Goodie. I guessed as much.
But yes, I expect that it will be caught as
a compile-time error.
And do you agree it's reasonable to expect
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
- const int is preferred over int/int.
- const int* is preferred over int*.
You mean when in each case both versions are
defined as overloads only the preferred ones
are ever called? C++ is the other way around.
For an int* argument the int* version is preferred
