--- 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
