--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 07:16:21AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote: > : $Spot = $visitor.nephew ?? $nicedog :: $meandog; > : > : Which brings up a small side note: that's a successfully applied > : boolean context for $visitor.nephew, right? > > Yes, but $visitor.nephew is no longer .does(nephew) in my current > view. You have to say > > $Spot = $visitor ~~ nephew ?? $nicedog :: $meandog; > > if nephew is to do any kind of implicit subtype matching. You can > also be explicit with .does(), of course.
I knew that, lol -- but again, that's why I lurk here. I'm trying keep my habits chasing the curve of whatever's being worked out. > : So what exactly does it mean to have a "typed reference"? $meandog > : still a Dog, just using an AttackDog role, right? So it's type is > : Dog&AttackDog? Inheritance thinking starts crowding in here and > : blurring my understanding of what's going on. > > There are going to be some limits on what you can do. We don't have > enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in > the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our > favor... Amen, brutha. Accordingly, do we have an idea what it actually means to add a type to something? I mean, I get that we could say print "yup" if $Spot ~~ AttackDog; but is there still print ref $Spot; and if so what does it print??? > : Obviously I'm not awake yet, but maybe these rambles will be useful > : to somebody? > > As a example of the problem with defaults, if nothing else. :-) lol -- hey, if I can be a bad example, at least my life has *some* purpose. :) > : My workplace considers refactoring to be reinventing the wheel. > : Just add another motor and axle over here!! sheesh, lol.... > > With multis you can be refactoring while you're also adding motors > and axles. :-) oooOOOOOoooooohhhhhh...... Hey! I *LOVE* that! >:op __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
