[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...just made them a convenience for identifying type errors...
I.e. type-safe macros.
--
John Porter
> > I haven't been tricked into reading MJD's article yet, but might your
> > third option be multiple functions with parameter-type-based dispatch?
> > We can do that with perl 5, but it isn't automatic.
>
> The problem with polymorphic functions is you have to rewrite the
> function N times (wh
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:37:47PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Jeremy Howard wrote:
> \
> > Perl 5 didn't need templates, because there wasn't compile-time typing. But
> > with Perl 6 I want to send my compact array of integers to the same fast
> > sum() function as my compact array of floats,
> Well, my hope is somehow we can get types to be a bit more implicit
> than the usual mess most people are used to.
I have grave concerns about 'implicit' typing. In my experience DWIM-style
typing can lead to serious hair pulling and long debug sessions over simple
errors. Now, if you can give
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:43:28PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> One of mjd's points about mashed potatoes is that Perl isn't ML, and ML's
> typing approach doesn't fit on top of Perl very well (i.e. at all).
Well, my hope is somehow we can get types to be a bit more implicit
than the usual mess
Michael Schwern wrote:
> mjd tricked me into reading his "Strong Typing Doesn't Have To Suck"
> talk, and now I'm looking at the typing proposals for Perl 6 and
> thinking... boy, its going to be almost as bad as C. That sucks.
>
> Is there hope? I dunno, but read the talk.
> http://perl.plover.
mjd tricked me into reading his "Strong Typing Doesn't Have To Suck"
talk, and now I'm looking at the typing proposals for Perl 6 and
thinking... boy, its going to be almost as bad as C. That sucks.
Is there hope? I dunno, but read the talk.
http://perl.plover.com/yak/typing/
--
Michael G Sc
