On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 05:54:50PM +0100, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
Author: moritz
Date: 2009-01-05 17:54:50 +0100 (Mon, 05 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 24769
+=item can
+
+ our Bool multi method can ($self:, Str $method)
+
+If there is a multi method of name C$method that can be called on
+C$self, then closure is return has C$self bound to the position
+of the invocant.
+
+Otherwise an undefined value is returned.
then closure is return has ?
perhaps: then the closure that is returned has ?
If it returns a closure then isn't Bool the signature wrong?
Before someone 'fixes' that, though, couldn't can() just return a Bool,
and move the 'give me a closure' to another method?
Ignoring the performance cost of needlessly creating closures
for simple boolean usage, 'can' doesn't seem like a good name for
a 'give me a closure' method.
+=item clone
+
+ our multi method clone (::T $self -- T)
+ our multi method clone (::T $self, *%attributes -- T)
+
+The first variant retuns an independent copy of C$o that is equivlant
+to C$o.
typos variant returns and equivalant
+The second variant does the same, but any named arguments override an
+attribute during the cloning process.
perhaps: any named arguments are applied to $self as attributes,
overriding any attributes with the same names. Makes it clearer that
the attributes aren't applied to nested elements.
+=item isa
+
+ our Bool multi method isa ($self:, $type)
+
+Returns true if a the invocant an instance of class C$type, or
typos Returns CTrue if the invocant is an instance ...
Tim.
