Ah yes, okay that makes much more sense when put in the context of sets.
Thanks Darren
- Stevan
On Apr 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Stevan Little wrote:
On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
2. Every type is a subtype of itself
I don't understand that statement
Stevan Little wrote:
On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
2. Every type is a subtype of itself
I don't understand that statement, can you please expand on it? Sounds
kinda like my favorite "Class is an instance of Class" statement that
"ties the knot" in the object system.
On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
First of all: OK - I understand that this was the official
interpretation.This is enough for me for continuing my work.
But see below for some more 'philosophical' notes.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Stevan Little
wrote:
On Apr 2
Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote [privately]:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
It seems that in the Moose terminology a Type is just a constraint
with a name. This is different from other languages where the type of
a value does not change in time or in r
First of all: OK - I understand that this was the official
interpretation.This is enough for me for continuing my work.
But see below for some more 'philosophical' notes.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Stevan Little
wrote:
>
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
>>
>> It
Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
It seems that in the Moose terminology a Type is just a constraint
with a name. This is different from other languages where the type of
a value does not change in time or in relation to the whole system.
You can copy the value and be sure that the copy has the same type
Dmitri,
It seems like you are looking to use Roles here in a way similar to
Java Interfaces.
Yes, that is a sane usage of them.
- Stevan
On Apr 29, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dmitri wrote:
I have base class "Contact" that bunch of other classes inherit
from. It ended up to be abstract class wit
I have base class "Contact" that bunch of other classes inherit from. It
ended up to be abstract class with set of properties and no methods.
Is it better approach to make it a role? What would be disadvantages of
both approaches?
My goal was to set up Moose interface classes that map to und
On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
It seems that in the Moose terminology a Type is just a constraint
with a name. This is different from other languages where the type of
a value does not change in time or in relation to the whole system.
You can copy the value and be sure t
It seems that in the Moose terminology a Type is just a constraint
with a name. This is different from other languages where the type of
a value does not change in time or in relation to the whole system.
You can copy the value and be sure that the copy has the same type you
can wait and check the
10 matches
Mail list logo
