of the form, I see three ways:
(1) The best readable form is probably:
readonly $temperature; # lexical scope
(2) But this fits better in perl6 conventions:
my $temperature is ro; # lexical scope
our $weather is ro; # package scope
$*global_weather is ro; # global scope
(3) For those who work
HaloO,
Steve Lukas wrote:
Thinking of the form, I see three ways:
(1) The best readable form is probably:
readonly $temperature; # lexical scope
The current spec has got
constant $temperature = getValue();
Hope that helps, TSa.
--
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 04:44:21PM +0100, TSa wrote:
: HaloO,
:
: Steve Lukas wrote:
: Thinking of the form, I see three ways:
: (1) The best readable form is probably:
: readonly $temperature; # lexical scope
:
: The current spec has got
:
:constant $temperature = getValue();
No, that
Steve Lukas writes:
(1) The best readable form is probably:
readonly $temperature; # lexical scope
(2) But this fits better in perl6 conventions:
my $temperature is ro; # lexical scope
I think form (2) should be possible for variables.
As Larry's pointed out, it pretty much already
Hello Thomas,
thanks for answering.
I fear the Cconstant declaration is not suitable
for the purposes I'm thinking of, since it sets
the value at compile time. And at compile time it
can't contact a database, unfortunately.
So, we need the assignment at runtime, but the sanity
check
Oops, that was a timing problem.
I didn't see that there were answers, sorry.
Kind Regards
Stefan
-
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
Larry, Smylers, now I've read your answers.
Larry, thanks for telling me that it is already specced.
I have overlooked it, sorry.
Hello Smylers, thanks for your answer, too. I'm not stucked on
the form C$-name. I am happy to get the runtime readonly
or the pragma.
Have a nice day
Stefan
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:07:43PM -0800, Steve Lukas wrote:
: Larry, Smylers, now I've read your answers.
: Larry, thanks for telling me that it is already specced.
: I have overlooked it, sorry.
: Hello Smylers, thanks for your answer, too. I'm not stucked on
: the form C$-name. I am happy to
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:42:27 -0800
. . . so maybe there's some general syntactic relief for rw/ro that is
orthogonal to everything else. But that means it wouldn't be a
trait, a type, a sigil, or a twigil, if it's really orthogonal.
I don't
