On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Hmm, since "what is compile to you is runtime for the compiler"
: it might by a normal store attempt that is then rejected by the object
: and caught by the compiler---cool. Is there also an unchecked store
: operation that can be u
Juerd wrote:
Larry Wall skribis 2005-03-11 8:45 (-0800):
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:58:13PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Int @i;
: Num @n = @i; # type error?
I think the naive user is going to expect that to work, and I also
suspect the naive user is right to expect it, because it makes sense.
T
Larry Wall skribis 2005-03-11 8:45 (-0800):
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:58:13PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
> : Int @i;
> : Num @n = @i; # type error?
> I think the naive user is going to expect that to work, and I also
> suspect the naive user is right to expect it, because it makes sense.
> Th
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:58:13PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Int @i;
: Num @n = @i; # type error?
I think the naive user is going to expect that to work, and I also
suspect the naive user is right to expect it, because it makes sense.
This may be one of those areas where we can successfully h
HaloO David,
you wrote:
I appreciate you attempting to explain this, but it remains clear as
mud, at least to me. Could you please try again, using very short,
very non-technical words and not assuming a mathematical or
scientific background on the part of your reader?
Ok, second attempt!
The <: i
Doug McNutt wrote:
A word of caution:
Just as in "vector operators" had their names changed to pacify the
> mathematicians - thank you - there is a conflict in terms. Covariant and
> contravariant tensors are the meat of Einstein's formulation of relativity.
> It all has to do with transformation
> At 17:53 +0100 3/10/05, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
[request for clarification of 'covariant' and 'contravariant' usage]
> >'Co' means together like in coproduction. And 'contra' is the opposite
> >as in counterproductive. With instanciating parametric types the question
> >arises how a subtype relatio
At 17:53 +0100 3/10/05, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
>'Co' means together like in coproduction. And 'contra' is the opposite
>as in counterproductive. With instanciating parametric types the question
>arises how a subtype relation between instanciating types propagates
>to the template. E.g with Int <: Nu
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, [UTF-8] Thomas SandlaÃ~_ wrote:
'Co' means together like in coproduction. And 'contra' is the opposite
'Streaming of digestive byproducts'? ;-)
Sorry for the OT - couldn't resist! This pun fir
HaloO Luke,
you wrote:
The words 'covariant' and 'contravariant' in this context seem like
voodoo math. Please explain what you mean.
'Co' means together like in coproduction. And 'contra' is the opposite
as in counterproductive. With instanciating parametric types the question
arises how a subtyp
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:21:42PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: > 3) I guess the distance function is not specified yet, right?
:
: It was specified as simple manhattan. I've been arguing for the past
: year to get this changed (to 'pure', where there is no distance
: function; two methods, which
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >One can always mixin a "does LinearInterpolation" at run time in the
> >body of the sub to get the effect of a directive, so I think the most
> >useful thing is to treat roles in signatures as constraints where
> >they can be used to select for MMD.
>
Larry Wall skribis 2005-03-08 9:42 (-0800):
> Maybe we need to work in the linguistic notion of "pretends to be"
> somehow.
If this needs a keyword, I suggest "plays" :)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajig
Larry Wall wrote:
One can always mixin a "does LinearInterpolation" at run time in the
body of the sub to get the effect of a directive, so I think the most
useful thing is to treat roles in signatures as constraints where
they can be used to select for MMD.
Further questions concerning MMD:
1) How
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:19:10AM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: >Or perhaps even
: >
: >sub foo (Num @in is copy does LinearInterpolation)
: >{
: > ...
: >}
:
: This is my big questionmark on roles: is the above a contraint
: or merely a directive. In the former case only Arrays of Num that
:
Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
Or perhaps even
sub foo (Num @in is copy does LinearInterpolation)
{
...
}
This is my big questionmark on roles: is the above a contraint
or merely a directive. In the former case only Arrays of Num that
do LinearInterpolation are allowed, in the latter case every
Array of
Dave Whipp wrote:
I don't see why I need the conditional there. If I'm going to copy the
array, I might as well declare up front the that darget does
LinearInterpolation:
sub foo (Num @raw_in)
{
my Num @in does LinearInterpolation = @raw_in;
...
}
This depends on how initialization works.
Aldo Calpini wrote:
I don't think you need "is constant". arguments are readonly by default,
unless you give them the "is rw" trait. I guess that "is constant" means
that you can specify the index only using a literal, not a variable, eg:
@test[1]; # ok, 1 is a costant
my $idx = 1;
@
Dave Whipp wrote:
Does defining the invocant as "Num @self is constant" constrain the application
> of the role to read-only uses of indices?
I don't think you need "is constant". arguments are readonly by default,
unless you give them the "is rw" trait. I guess that "is constant" means
that you
I was trying to work out how to get non-integer indexes working for an
array -- initially using linear interpolation, though perhaps later it
would be generalized. Can anyone comment on whether this simple role
would work as I expect. Does defining the invocant as "Num @self is
constant" constr
20 matches
Mail list logo
