Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

Kealey, Martin, ihug-NZ Martin.Kealey-at-vodafone.com |Perl 6| wrote: In Java, "final" is used to denote both a *class* that can't change (extend), and *value* that can't change (a constant member of the class). Got it: on a value it means readonly. --John

RE: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

I wrote: > > Overloading "final" was Java's rather inept attempt to > > define objects with value semantics rather than container semantics John M. Dlugosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you tell me more about that, or point to something? Alas I can't point to anything, it's just a personal c

RE: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

> -Original Message- > From: chromatic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > We are trying to avoid the "java.lang.String is Final" > problem here in various ways. One of them is not allowing > library designers to mark things as final. Overloading "final" was Java's rather inept attempt to def

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

Overloading "final" was Java's rather inept attempt to define objects with value semantics rather than container semantics Can you tell me more about that, or point to something?

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

HaloO, Nicholas Clark wrote: Is there any way to pre-declare that I want to defer baking the role from a class? (Which I guess would make it an error to reference that role at run time in any way, until I'd issued a second declaration that I was done, and baking season is open) I fear this is

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:21:27PM -0700, chromatic wrote: > On Friday 02 May 2008 11:55:54 Larry Wall wrote: > > > On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 11:15:34AM -0700, chromatic wrote: > > > : All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name. > > > If a role is derived from a class, it must of

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

On 2008 May 3, at 6:25, Richard Hainsworth wrote: - if u want to add a role to an existing object, perl wraps the object into a class, adds the role, reinstantiates the object. As I understand it, Perl inserts a new anonymous class as the object's parent, and adds the role to that. The ob

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name. -- c Please justify that. --John As a 'Joe Blow' type programmer trying to follow this thread, I went back to the "traits" paper and read John's Polymorphism paper.

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

> What's the point of omnipotence if you can't swoop down from the rafters once in a while and save your hero from almost certain peril? To quote *Larry from "Time Bandits" - "er, something to do with free will." a --- Andy Bach Systems Mangler Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voic

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

On Friday 02 May 2008 16:07:56 John M. Dlugosz wrote: > chromatic chromatic-at-wgz.org |Perl 6| wrote: > Why is there any difference in declaring classes and roles if a class > can be used as the target of either 'is' or 'does'? You can't instantiate a role. You can instantiate a class. When y

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote: On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:22:00PM -0700, chromatic wrote: : On Friday 02 May 2008 11:44:40 John M. Dlugosz wrote: : : > chromatic chromatic-at-wgz.org |Perl 6| wrote: : : > > All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name. : : > Please

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

chromatic chromatic-at-wgz.org |Perl 6| wrote: http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_people I could edit it into a Synopsis if you really want. -- c Or just explain the reasoning that's missing now. Why is there any difference in declaring classes and roles if a class can

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

John M. Dlugosz wrote: chromatic chromatic-at-wgz.org |Perl 6| wrote: All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name. Please justify that. A class is an defined, referenceable entity with a "signature" composed of the bits visible to a particular caller. It is possible, by d

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

On Friday 02 May 2008 13:11:55 Larry Wall wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:22:00PM -0700, chromatic wrote: > : I could edit it into a Synopsis if you really want. > Tweet! Foul on #17. Two shots! What's the point of omnipotence if you can't swoop down from the rafters once in a while and

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:22:00PM -0700, chromatic wrote: : On Friday 02 May 2008 11:44:40 John M. Dlugosz wrote: : : > chromatic chromatic-at-wgz.org |Perl 6| wrote: : : > > All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name. : : > Please justify that. : : http://www.perlfoundation.or

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

On Friday 02 May 2008 11:44:40 John M. Dlugosz wrote: > chromatic chromatic-at-wgz.org |Perl 6| wrote: > > All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name. > Please justify that. http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_people I could edit it into a Synopsis if you reall

Re: "All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name."

chromatic chromatic-at-wgz.org |Perl 6| wrote: On Friday 02 May 2008 07:08:21 John M. Dlugosz wrote: TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote: Then, since classes are open, the programmer can easily say CGI does CGI::Simple; That would be class CGI is also { d