On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:02:22AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We didn't include it in A6 but our current notions (i.e. this week ;-)
about interactions between subs, methods, and multimethods are
something like this:
# New Ticket Created by Leon Brocard
# Please include the string: [perl #21588]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21588
Well, it's more of a new file than a patch. I'm aware that we're in a
code freeze,
On 03/14/2003 3:22 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
There's a difference between Fund project X and Fund person X.
Funding a project, and having one person suitable to do the project, is
OK, generally speaking. (Though I expect the feds still peer pretty
closely) Funding a specific person is dodgier.
If I've understood A6 correctly there are 6 types of argument to subroutines:
invocant, mandatory positional parameters, optional positional parameters,
optional named parameters, slurpy hash and slurpy array.
How come there seems to be no way to specify mandatory named parameters?
I'm not sure
There seems to be some confusion about which way up the world is.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:25:41PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Which in turn is because:
not Scalar.isa(int)
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 11:55:06AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 11:31:30AM -0800, Austin
LP == Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on boston.pm a thread arose about having named subs inside subs. of
course perl5 can do it but they don't do anything useful but they do
have some odd implemenation defined closure behavior.
someone brought up lisp and scheme and how
talking about nested subs brought up another related idea, static (not
on the stack) lexicals inside subs. the current solution in p5 is to
declare them in a surrounding block and that is slightly ugly. and if
you want multiple subs to share them they all have to be in that block.
so a simple is
Uri Guttman wrote:
talking about nested subs brought up another related idea, static (not
on the stack) lexicals inside subs.
Doesn't Cour give you this?
Dave.
--
http://dave.whipp.name
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:27:03AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: I think that it would be nice to be able to chain yourself in there, rather
: than having to replace.
:
: In perl5 there are some things you have to override, rather than adding to.
: Offhand I can't see a practical way that the
At 8:16 AM -0800 3/15/03, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:27:03AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: I think that it would be nice to be able to chain yourself in there, rather
: than having to replace.
:
: In perl5 there are some things you have to override, rather than adding to.
:
NC == Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NC If I've understood A6 correctly there are 6 types of argument to
NC subroutines: invocant, mandatory positional parameters, optional
NC positional parameters, optional named parameters, slurpy hash and
NC slurpy array.
NC How come
I'm not sure if it helps people understand why I'm confused by explaining
my background, but I've done exactly zero computer science, and have come
to whatever (mis)understanding of OO I have by using C++ (and then perl).
I've never used Java, but I'm aware that it has a concept of interfaces
- Original Message -
From: Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: is static?
Uri Guttman wrote:
talking about nested subs brought up another related idea, static (not
on the stack) lexicals inside subs.
Doesn't Cour
At 02:36 PM 3/14/2003 -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 6:59 PM -0800 3/13/03, Robert Spier wrote:
If we can't find anothr home for it, I can make a spot on
ftp.sidhe.org for it. Not a *fast* home, since it's either 128k or
192k upstream
In a message dated Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Luke Palmer writes:
{
my Class %valClasses;
sub Val($N) returns Class {
my Class $rclass = %valClasses{$N} //= class {
multi *isa ($obj, $rclass $class) { $obj ~~ $N }
}
}
}
multi factorial (Int
Uri Guttman wrote:
NC == Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NC How come there seems to be no way to specify mandatory named
NC parameters? I'm not sure that *I*'d ever want to write
apoc6:
A hash declaration like *%named indicates that the %named hash
should
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:18:33PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
The design team has already considered this idea, and my problem
with it then (and now) is that it's inconsistent with other forms
of variable declaration:
my sub foo( ?$bar is constant = 1 )
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 05:32:41PM -0800, mlazzaro wrote:
: So my reading is that it's not possible to specify 'required' named parameters,
: unless we're completely missing something. My first impulse is that it's not a
: big deal, because who's gonna do that? My second impulse is... well... if
Doesn't Cour give you this?
Not really. A variable declared with our can be accessed from
anywhere in the program, just by redeclaring it or calling it with
the package:: syntax.A variable declared with my can be
accessed outside its scope only if the user returns a reference
to
Luke Palmer wrote:
The idea is that positional parameters are always a contiguous
sequence in the argument list. If it looked like this:
sub foo($x, ?$y, +$k, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
Then one might presume to call it like:
foo($x, $y, $k, 1, 2, 3);
Which they can't. So
Larry Wall wrote:
On the other hand, is static would be instantly recognizable to
C programmers. Maybe they're due for a sop...
Bah! No sop for them! Cstatic has so many overloaded meanings in
C/C++ that who's to say this meaning is really the one that's worth
codifying? (I always felt this
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW It is likely that if we have is static, the compiler would translate
LW my $pi is static = 3
LW to something like
LW our $foo__Xdeadbeef will init {.set(3)}
LW I really hate the word static though, which is why I suggested
LW
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 05:32:41PM -0800, mlazzaro wrote:
LW : So my reading is that it's not possible to specify 'required'
LW : named parameters, unless we're completely missing something. My
LW : first impulse is that it's not a big
23 matches
Mail list logo
