--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People were talking about what type "..." should be. So at static > type analysis time (if we even do that; I think we do, otherwise we > wouldn't have static type declarations), you give "..." type error > semantics, but then don't die until you actually run the "...". > > my int $foo = ...; # ... > my int $bar = 34; # int > $bar += $foo; # ... > > That's the correct solution to the type analysis problems. I wasn't > trying to address anything else. > > The problem was that people were trying to derive it/make it a > role/give it some type that could go anywhere. I'm just saying it > should be a special case. That special case is already used when > there's a type error, except that the type error dies after the > current statement finishes processing.
How do I extend "..."? That is, I want to code \U{VERTICAL ELLIPSIS} as a "code goes here" alternative to ... with some additional semantics. So, how wrong is this: class VerticalYadda { extends Yadda; multi method coerce:as($what) { say "Coercing VerticalYadda to " ~ ($what as Str); next METHOD; } } sub *\U{VERTICAL ELLIPSIS}() { return new VerticalYadda; } =Austin