Ashley Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> <grin> Patches welcome.
>
> Excellent...
>
> Forgive any formatting errors, I have mail issues.
Thanks, applying. With a few caveats.
> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
> class SchemePair is SchemeExpr {
> my $nil //= class is SchemeExpr {
> method is_nil {1}
> + method is_pair {0}
> method car { fail Exception:
> msg => "car: expects argument of type <pair>, given
> ()" }
> method cdr { fail Exception:
That change isn't necessary. If you look you'll see that the anonymous
class of which $nil is the only instance is a subclass of SchemeExpr,
not SchemePair.
> @@ -77,12 +78,13 @@
> method car { .value.key }
> method cdr { .value.value }
> method is_pair { 1 }
> + method is_nil { 0 }
SchemeExpr's AUTOLOAD handles that automagically.
> method AUTOLOAD {
> .NEXT::AUTOLOAD unless $AUTOLOAD =~ /:?c([ad]+)r$/;
> - my @ops = reverse split '', $1;
> - my $val = $_[0];
> + my @ops = reverse split '', $1; # $1? Apocalypse 5...
> + my $val = @_[0];
YARGH! I thought I'd got rid of all those 5isms.
>
> method new_scope($self:) { ref($self).new(__parent__ => $self) }
>
> - method bind_primitive($name, &func) {
> - .bind(SchemeSymbol.new($name),
> - SchemePrimitive.new( $name => &func ));
> + method bind_primitive(PAIR @primitives) {
> + for @primitives -> $primitive {
> + .bind(SchemeSymbol.new($primitive.key),
> + SchemePrimitive.new( $primitive ));
Hmm... does that declaration syntax work? I really hope so 'cos it's
lovely.
> }
>
> my method parent { .{__parent__} }
>
> method set($self: SchemeSymbol $key, SchemeExpr $value) {
> given .exists($key) {
> - when defined { .value($value) }
> + when defined { .{key} = $value }
D'oh. Should be C<.{$key}> thought.
> - '+' => $expr, $context -> {
> + '+' => -> $expr, $context {
Oops. C<sub operator:&lambda { -> *@_ }> anyone?
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
