On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 05:49:54PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
: On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 17:39 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:23:14PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
:
: > : I could make the argument that it should be possible to decorate an
: > : object with a role. If that means g
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 17:39 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:23:14PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> : I could make the argument that it should be possible to decorate an
> : object with a role. If that means generating a new anonymous class just
> : to have a vtable to munge, so
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:23:14PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
: I could make the argument that it should be possible to decorate an
: object with a role. If that means generating a new anonymous class just
: to have a vtable to munge, so be it.
Er, how is that different from what we already said? O
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 19:40 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 05:56:12PM -0800, David Storrs wrote:
> : Actually, I guess they would have to be...can you apply a role to a
> : bare type?
> :
> : my int does SelectOutputFile; # I would expect this to fail
> : my Int d
