(Sorry for replying _so_ late...)
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I kinda like Autrijus's idea that "meta" just means "guts". In
classical Greek, "meta" just means "with". The fancy philosophical
meaning of "aboutness" isn't there, but is a backformation from
terms such as metaphysics.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:35:14AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:32:01PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> > you wrote:
> > >Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
> > >with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
> >
> > Counting the sigil qua
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
It might be a mistake to call these isa relationships though. I really
only care about
Package does Object.
Module does Package.
Role does Module.
Class does Role.
OK, I've added that and the Set type in my little type lattice.
With your Object still
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:24:11AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:12:45AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > We can get away with this in Perl 6 because bindings to positionals
: > happen lazily. So all we have to check for syntactically is that we
: > don't have a subsequent d
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:54:54PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: Let me make sure I understand this.
:
: Package is an Object.
: Module is a Package.
: Class is a Package.
: Role is a Package.
I think of it more like:
Package is an Object.
Module is a Package.
Class is a Module.
TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you wrote:
> > Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
> > with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
>
> Counting the sigil quadriga as 4, what is the fifth element?
> And $it.does(LookGood)?
$ @ % & ::
--
Brent 'Dax' R
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:32:01PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> you wrote:
> >Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
> >with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
>
> Counting the sigil quadriga as 4, what is the fifth element?
& @ $ % ::
In Perl5, :: is replac
HaloO Autrijus,
you wrote:
Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
Counting the sigil quadriga as 4, what is the fifth element?
And $it.does(LookGood)?
--
$TSa.greeting := "HaloO"; # mind the echo!
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/10/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is an example of a 2D distance method
role Point
{
has Num $.x;
has Num $.y;
}
method distance( Point $a, Point $b --> Num )
{
return sqrt( ($a.x - $b.x)**2 - ($a.y - $b.y)**2);
}
[..]
# This
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:12:45AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> We can get away with this in Perl 6 because bindings to positionals
> happen lazily. So all we have to check for syntactically is that we
> don't have a subsequent declaration that changes the syntax from list
> to unary (or none-ary).
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:47:47AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-08-09 16:19 (-0700):
: > So either something in the context tells us what "Foo" means, or
: > it will be taken as a list operator that hasn't been declared yet.
:
: Is there, by the way, a pragma to force predeclarati
On 8/10/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is an example of a 2D distance method
>
>role Point
>{
> has Num $.x;
> has Num $.y;
>}
>method distance( Point $a, Point $b --> Num )
>{
> return sqrt( ($a.x - $b.x)**2 - ($a.y - $b.y)**2);
>}
>
> Now comes
HaloO Stevan,
you wrote:
I hope that .isa, .does and .meta are normal Method subtypes and *not*
slots on some implementation objects/structures.
I am not sure I understand this. Can you elaborate?
With pleasure!
OK, where do I start? ...
The origin of OO stems from the need to organize da
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 06:03:18AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 8/10/05, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But it's an toplevel optimization, which is not applicable to
> > module authors. So I'd very much welcome a lexical pragma that
> > forces static binding of subroutine calls.
>
On 8/10/05, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it's an toplevel optimization, which is not applicable to
> module authors. So I'd very much welcome a lexical pragma that
> forces static binding of subroutine calls.
Yeah, but the whole point of not allowing that is so that you can
over
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:47:47AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Larry Wall skribis 2005-08-09 16:19 (-0700):
> > So either something in the context tells us what "Foo" means, or
> > it will be taken as a list operator that hasn't been declared yet.
>
> Is there, by the way, a pragma to force predeclarati
Larry Wall skribis 2005-08-09 16:19 (-0700):
> So either something in the context tells us what "Foo" means, or
> it will be taken as a list operator that hasn't been declared yet.
Is there, by the way, a pragma to force predeclaration of subs, to gain
compile time typo checking?
Juerd
--
http:
Larry,
On Aug 9, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: >So far, this is what I have picked up; some/most of it is probably
: >wrong:
: >
: >~ Foo ~
: >Is a type that variables etc. can be declared to have
:
: That is one way to look at it I suppose. The reality is that there
will
: be no actua
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:54:23PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: Stuart,
:
: On Aug 9, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Stuart Cook wrote:
: >Stevan,
: >
: >Up until today, I thought I had a good idea of how your metamodel
: >works, but now I'm confused. My main sticking point is that a class
: >Foo seems to ha
On Aug 9, 2005, at 10:52 AM, TSa wrote:
~ Foo ~
Is a type that variables etc. can be declared to have
Is not an object
=> I'm really not sure about this...
Bare Foo is a namespace lookup.
Yes, TSa is right. Everything below this is Type-stuff and I will leave
that to him (up until the Met
On Aug 9, 2005, at 12:36 PM, TSa wrote:
HaloO Stevan,
you wrote:
Guten Tag Herr Sandlaß,
you know that a formal German greeting in a collequial
environment can be interpreted as unfriendly? I don't
do that but just wanted to state the fact.
My apologies, no unfriendliness intended :)
The
Stuart,
On Aug 9, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Stuart Cook wrote:
Stevan,
Up until today, I thought I had a good idea of how your metamodel
works, but now I'm confused. My main sticking point is that a class
Foo seems to have three different aspects:
Foo
class(Foo)
meta(Foo)
For each of these, could yo
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 06:36:28PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> But Smalltalk is a typeless language that dispatches along the lines
> of the (meta)class/(meta)object links. I propose to call this kind
> of thing slot dispatch and reserve single and multi method dispatch for
> the type based approach. Don't
HaloO Stevan,
you wrote:
Guten Tag Herr Sandlaß,
you know that a formal German greeting in a collequial
environment can be interpreted as unfriendly? I don't
do that but just wanted to state the fact.
The next level where a 1:n relation exists is below meta(Foo) to pure
meta.
Not entirel
HaloO,
Stuart Cook wrote:
So far, this is what I have picked up; some/most of it is probably wrong:
At least your confusion matches nicely with mine :)
~ Foo ~
Is a type that variables etc. can be declared to have
Is not an object
=> I'm really not sure about this...
Bare Foo is a names
Guten Tag Herr Sandlaß,
On Aug 9, 2005, at 4:48 AM, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
HaloO,
Stevan Little wrote:
Here is a 10,000 ft view of the metamodel prototype I sketched out
the other day
(http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel/docs/
10_000_ft_view.pod). It should shed a li
Stevan,
Up until today, I thought I had a good idea of how your metamodel
works, but now I'm confused. My main sticking point is that a class
Foo seems to have three different aspects:
Foo
class(Foo)
meta(Foo)
For each of these, could you please try to explain:
1) Roughly what its responsibilit
HaloO,
Stevan Little wrote:
Here is a 10,000 ft view of the metamodel prototype I sketched
out the other day
(http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel/docs/
10_000_ft_view.pod). It should shed a little light on this discussion.
There you have
i(Foo) - instance of Foo
Mark,
To add to what I explained re: Class objects.
We have instance methods and class methods now in Perl 6, as well as
instance attributes and class attributes. The way I view Class objects
are as such:
A Class object is to class methods as an instance is to instance
methods.
Meaning
Mark,
On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Mark Reed wrote:
Coming in late here, but it seems odd to have an actual class called
"MetaClass". The meta-object protocols with which I am familiar have
the
concept of a metaclass (a class whose instances are themselves
classes), and
the class Class is su
Coming in late here, but it seems odd to have an actual class called
"MetaClass". The meta-object protocols with which I am familiar have the
concept of a metaclass (a class whose instances are themselves classes), and
the class Class is such a metaclass, but where does a class named MetaClass
fit
31 matches
Mail list logo
