On 20/05/2012, at 12:16 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
>> The right way to do it is to do the static typing first. Then provide
>> flexible but statically typed constructions. The more flexible you make
>> them the more closely it resembles dynamic typing, but now we have
>> a range of alternatives.
>
> w
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:32 AM, john skaller
wrote:
> We'll get to that. Felix was always meant to be dynamically typed.
> It is a scripting language after all. However, the way forward I have
> chosen is: instead of "Python is dynamically typed lets try (in vain) to
> add optional static typing
On 19/05/2012, at 8:27 PM, john skaller wrote:
> var xyz:XYZ = extend x,y with (k="world") end;
Ok, so I now think: the first stage in making the Java like syntax
for objects with extensions is anonymous objects:
var o = object (arguments) implements X = {
omethod ...
Just thought to throw some info in here for no reason.
The way Felix implements closures is non-obvious and not efficient
for a subtle reason. When you do this:
fun f(x:int)=>x;
var g = f;
println$ g1;
Felix create an object of C++ class f on the heap, and stores a pointer
to it in variable g. I
A more complete example:
//
var x = (a=1, b=2, c="m");
var y = (c=9.9, s="Hello");
typedef X = (a:int, b:int, c:string);
typedef Y = (c:double, s:string);
typedef XYZ = extend X, Y with (k:string) end;
var xyz:XYZ = extend x,y with (k="world") end;
println$ xyz.a, xyz.b, xyz.c, xyz.s, xyz.k
On 19/05/2012, at 7:53 PM, john skaller wrote:
> I've now implemented value extensions. The syntax is temporary
> just to get stuff working.
>
> /
> var x = (a=1, b=2);
> var y = (c=9.9, s="Hello");
>
> var xyz = extend x,y with (k="world") end;
>
> println$ xyz.a, xyz.b, xyz.c, xyz.s, xyz
I've now implemented value extensions. The syntax is temporary
just to get stuff working.
/
var x = (a=1, b=2);
var y = (c=9.9, s="Hello");
var xyz = extend x,y with (k="world") end;
println$ xyz.a, xyz.b, xyz.c, xyz.s, xyz.k;
Note syntactic quirkology: x,y means value x, then value y
On 19/05/2012, at 4:44 PM, john skaller wrote:
>
> At the moment you have to do this:
>
> typedef ab = (a:int, bint);
> p (z :>> ab);
>
> i.e. you have to explicitly coerce the record to have the exact fields the
> function requires.
Ah, I should add some comments on "polymorphism" here, mea
