Re: Edits to submit

2008-08-05 Thread Audrey Tang

Audrey Tang 提到:
However, in S02 you removed the Code class and replaced it with Routine, 
but that does not really work; for example, a bare block is a Code, but 
it cannot be a Routine since it can't be wrapped in place, and caller() 
would bypass it when considering caller frames.


I should've been more explicit.  While I don't really have a problem 
with replacing Code with Callable (except the latter is more wordy, so 
why not replace Callable with Code...), the issue is that your S02.pod 
edits indicates that a variable foo must always be bound to a Routine 
object. However, variable with the  sigil can be bound to a Block as 
well, so replacing Code with Routine at line 1487 and 1512 doesn't quite 
work. :-)


Cheers,
Audrey



Re: Edits to submit

2008-08-05 Thread Audrey Tang

John M. Dlugosz 提到:
I've edited several of the S??.pod files,but I have not heard back from 
the owner ($Larry, whose name is on the top of the file) about accepting 
merging or rejecting my changes.


I've posted the files to http://www.dlugosz.com/Perl6/offerings/ so 
they don't get lost, until someone with authority wants to diff them.


I'm diffing them (slowly), and have committed your stylistic edits to 
S02.pod.  Thanks!


However, in S02 you removed the Code class and replaced it with Routine, 
but that does not really work; for example, a bare block is a Code, but 
it cannot be a Routine since it can't be wrapped in place, and caller() 
would bypass it when considering caller frames.


Cheers,
Audrey



Re: Edits to submit - Routine/Callable

2008-08-05 Thread John M. Dlugosz

Audrey Tang audreyt-at-audreyt.org |Perl 6| wrote:

Audrey Tang 提到:
However, in S02 you removed the Code class and replaced it with 
Routine, but that does not really work; for example, a bare block is 
a Code, but it cannot be a Routine since it can't be wrapped in 
place, and caller() would bypass it when considering caller frames.


I should've been more explicit.  While I don't really have a problem 
with replacing Code with Callable (except the latter is more wordy, so 
why not replace Callable with Code...), 
1) nobody cared enough to discuss it for a couple weeks, and I decided 
that's one reason why this is moving so slowly...better to =do= 
already.  See earlier post on Callable/Code. 

2) Callable is mentioned in S02 as the role that goes with  variables, 
and that is latest most official statement from Larry.  Uses of Code for 
that role (eqv to  variable) is relic from before roles.  Why not use 
Code instead of Callable?  I think Larry wanted those key sigil roles to 
have names that are adjectives.  In any case, they form a nice matched set.


the issue is that your S02.pod edits indicates that a variable foo 
must always be bound to a Routine object. However, variable with the 
 sigil can be bound to a Block as well, so replacing Code with 
Routine at line 1487 and 1512 doesn't quite work. :-)




I must have made a mistake; that should have been Callable.  Callable is 
synonomous with the  sigil.




Cheers,
Audrey






Edits to submit

2008-08-02 Thread John M. Dlugosz
I've edited several of the S??.pod files,but I have not heard back from 
the owner ($Larry, whose name is on the top of the file) about accepting 
merging or rejecting my changes.


I've posted the files to http://www.dlugosz.com/Perl6/offerings/ so 
they don't get lost, until someone with authority wants to diff them.


--John