HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
No, the role installs homogenious targets into the generic
binary-MMD comparator which I think is called eqv.
Err, why? We already have that with regular MMD semantics.
role Num {
multi &*infix: ($x:, Num $y) { $x == $y }
}
What you mean is double dispatc
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:53:20 +0200, TSa wrote:
> HaloO Yuval,
>
> you wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
> >> role Object does Compare[Object, =:=]
> >> role Numdoes Compare[Num, ==]
> >> role Strdoes Compare[Str, eq]
> >What is the implication of from the
HaloO Yuval,
you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
role Object does Compare[Object, =:=]
role Numdoes Compare[Num, ==]
role Strdoes Compare[Str, eq]
What is the implication of from the perspective of the person using
Object, Num and Str?
Do they have on
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Damian Conway wrote:
> >Just a meta-point...one thing we really do need to be careful of is not
> >ending up with 17 different "equality" operators (like certain languages I
> >shall refrain from naming). So far we're
> >contemplat
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 16:57:30 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
This is what the operators mean to me:
> =:=
The right side and the left are the same thing, in the sense that:
$x =:= $y; # if this is true
$x.mutating_method; # and one side is changed
$x =:= $y; # the
HaloO,
Damian Conway wrote:
Just a meta-point...one thing we really do need to be careful of is not
ending up with 17 different "equality" operators (like certain languages
I shall refrain from naming). So far we're contemplating:
=:=
~~
==
eq
eqv
equals
Do we really
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 16:32:37 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Hmm, well, I don't think >>&op<< is valid syntax, but you did say
> "semantics", so I can't criticize that part. :-)
What is >><<, btw?
Is it
&circumfix:{'>>','<<'} (Code &op --> Code); # takes some code, returns
a listop
or
Larry wrote:
Or we could have a different operator that coerces like == and eq, only
via .snap:
if [1,2,3] equals [1,2,3] { say "true" } else { say "false" }
(Actual name negotiable, of course). The advantage of the latter approach
is that you can say
@foo >>equals<< @bar
and th
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:43:46AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:28:01 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:19:33PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: > : "10" == "10"; # dispatches to Str, due to better match
: >
: > Nope, that will continue to coerce to n
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:28:01 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:19:33PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> : "10" == "10"; # dispatches to Str, due to better match
>
> Nope, that will continue to coerce to numeric comparison. The design
> team did in fact consider pure "equiv
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:19:33PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: "10" == "10"; # dispatches to Str, due to better match
Nope, that will continue to coerce to numeric comparison. The design
team did in fact consider pure "equivalence" MMD dispatch of == in
the last meeting, but rejected it in
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 18:15:07 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
> sorry, I've some problems with this proposal:
>
> == has always meant numeric equality in Perl and I'd like it to stay
> that way.
For "simple" values like numbers and strings == is numberic, because
it's affinity to it.
> > "10
Hi,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
> I think this is more consistent, and just as useful:
>
> 10 == 10; # dispatches to num
> "10" == 10; # dispatched to Num, by means of coercion (== has some
> affinity to it for backwards compatibility) "10" == "10"; # dispatches
> to Str, due to better match "10.0" == "1
13 matches
Mail list logo
