TSa wrote:
I'm not familiar with the next METHOD syntax.
It's simple: if a multi method says "next METHOD;" then execution of
the current method gets aborted, and the next MMD candidate is tried;
it uses the same parameters that the current method used, and it
returns its value to the current m
Mark J. Reed:
> Aaron Sherman:
>> Proposal: A sigil followed by [...] is always a composer for that
type.
>>
>> %[...] - Hash. Unicode: ?...?
>> @[...] - Array. Unicode: [...]
>> ? - Seq. Unicode: ?...?
>> &[...] - Code. Unicode: ?...?
>> |[...] -
HaloO,
Stevan Little wrote:
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This notion of exclusionary roles is an interesting one, though. I'd
like to hear about what kinds of situations would find this notion
useful; but for the moment, I'll take your word that such situations
exist an
HaloO,
Stevan Little wrote:
As for how the example in the OP might work, I would suspect that
"super" would not be what we are looking for here, but instead a
variant of "next METHOD".
I'm not familiar with the next METHOD syntax. How does one get the
return value from it and how are parameter
