Huffman encoding (was Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance)

On 2008-Apr-30, at 1:29 pm, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: On Apr 30, 2008, at 15:14 , Jon Lang wrote: On a side note, I'd like to make a request of the Perl 6 community with regard to coding style: could we please have adverbal names that are, well, adverbs? "is :strict Dog" brings to my mind

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

John M. Dlugosz wrote: > Jon Lang dataweaver-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote: > > > IIRC, the supertyping proposal involved being able to "anti-derive" > > roles from existing roles or classes, working from subtypes to > > supertypes (or from derived roles to base roles) instead of the other > > way ar

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

Jon Lang dataweaver-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote: IIRC, the supertyping proposal involved being able to "anti-derive" roles from existing roles or classes, working from subtypes to supertypes (or from derived roles to base roles) instead of the other way around. The proposal got hung up on termin

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

Sex, 2008-05-02 às 15:32 +0200, TSa escreveu: > Daniel Ruoso wrote: > > I don't really see what this "is :strict" means in the runtime > > environment. Perl 6 takes OO so deeply that even the type checking is > > implemented as a cal to the object. There isn't really a way of asking > > "are you tr

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

John M. Dlugosz wrote: > TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote: > > Take e.g. my supertyping proposal. I guess it was regarded as > > a curiosity rather than an innovative feature. > > Which idea was that? Maybe I already took the wind into account when I > rounded up the ideas in need

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote: HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: Hmm, I always had the impression of strong headwind. How so? Take e.g. my supertyping proposal. I guess it was regarded as a curiosity rather than an innovative feature. Regards, TSa. Which idea was that? Mayb

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

Qua, 2008-04-30 às 12:53 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH escreveu: > It occurs to me that this shouldn't be new keywords, but adverbs, i.e. > ``is :strict Dog''. I don't really see what this "is :strict" means in the runtime environment. Perl 6 takes OO so deeply that even the type checking is

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

HaloO, Daniel Ruoso wrote: I don't really see what this "is :strict" means in the runtime environment. Perl 6 takes OO so deeply that even the type checking is implemented as a cal to the object. There isn't really a way of asking "are you trully really a Dog?", there's only "do you 'Dog'?". S

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

TSa schreef: > Brandon S. Allbery: >> It occurs to me that this shouldn't be new keywords, but adverbs, >> i.e. ``is :strict Dog''. > > Great idea! And it leaves room for ':stricter' and ':strictest'. ;) -- Affijn, Ruud "Gewoon is een tijger."

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

--- "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On a side note, I'd like to make a request of the Perl 6 community > > with regard to coding style: could we please have adverbal names > that > > are, well, adverbs? "is :strict Dog" brings to my mind the English > > -ly suffixes eve

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

HaloO, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: I was guessing, I still haven't had a chance to mindmeld with all the synopses. The point remains that this is not a new keyword but an adverb modifying the existing keyword. I fully agree. As an add on 'strict' is a very well established concept elsewh

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

On 2008 May 2, at 5:50, TSa wrote: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: It occurs to me that this shouldn't be new keywords, but adverbs, i.e. ``is :strict Dog''. Great idea! But aren't named args required to be after required ones? I was guessing, I still haven't had a chance to mindmeld with

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

HaloO, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: It occurs to me that this shouldn't be new keywords, but adverbs, i.e. ``is :strict Dog''. Great idea! But aren't named args required to be after required ones? That is we have "is Dog :strict"? I would actually like to relax the syntax if that were possi

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: Hmm, I always had the impression of strong headwind. How so? Take e.g. my supertyping proposal. I guess it was regarded as a curiosity rather than an innovative feature. Regards, TSa. -- "The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare 1

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote: On a more fundamental level, I wonder what the social ramifications are. First, to what extent is this something that will interfere with people who don't want to learn higher-order typing in order to get their job done, but will be forced to because

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

On Apr 30, 2008, at 15:14 , Jon Lang wrote: only is "is :strictly Dog" more legible, but it leaves room for the possible future inclusion of adjective-based syntax such as "big Dog" It occurs to me that we already have this: we call them "types". -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,p

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

On Apr 30, 2008, at 15:14 , Jon Lang wrote: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: It occurs to me that this shouldn't be new keywords, but adverbs, i.e. ``is :strict Dog''. On a side note, I'd like to make a request of the Perl 6 community with regard to coding style: could we please have adver

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Jon Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > > > TSa wrote: > > > I totally agree! Using 'isa' pulls in the type checker. Do we have the > > > same option for 'does' e.g. 'doesa'? Or is type checking always implied > > > in role composi

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > TSa wrote: > > I totally agree! Using 'isa' pulls in the type checker. Do we have the > > same option for 'does' e.g. 'doesa'? Or is type checking always implied > > in role composition? Note that the class can override a role's methods > > at will. > > It occurs

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

On Apr 30, 2008, at 8:43 AM, TSa wrote: John M. Dlugosz wrote: "isa" as a synonym for "is" that turns on warnings is documented at the end of my paper under "Concepts discussed in this paper that are not on the Synopses". I totally agree! Using 'isa' pulls in the type checker. Do we have

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 07:29:58AM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote: > I am listening. I'm synthesizing and documenting. I'm also disappointed > with the lack of feedback from Larry, considering the amount of effort and > time I'm putting into it. But I'm sure he'll squawk if I say something > re

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

Ovid publiustemp-perl6language2-at-yahoo.com |Perl 6| wrote: So, isn't "isa" and the "£" merely things which can be added by programmers by changing the grammar? That was one of the design goals of the language. The capability needs to exist as part of the overall type system, with primitiv

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote: HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: "isa" as a synonym for "is" that turns on warnings is documented at the end of my paper under "Concepts discussed in this paper that are not on the Synopses". I totally agree! Using 'isa' pulls in the type checker

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

Qua, 2008-04-30 às 15:55 +0200, TSa escreveu: > But the type system is part of the language core. > As such 'isa' and 'like' or assignment and binding semantics > need a definition. Actually, this is one of the hardest parts of implementing Perl 6, because even 'isa', 'like', assignment and bindi

Pragma for type matching alternative implementations (Was: Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance)

Ter, 2008-04-29 às 21:03 -0500, John M. Dlugosz escreveu: > In response to questions on my whitepaper, I made this companion > to bring people up to speed on the issue. > Very interesting reading... :) It actually made me think that it woul

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

HaloO, Ovid wrote: So, isn't "isa" and the "£" merely things which can be added by programmers by changing the grammar? That was one of the design goals of the language. With a changeable grammar this applies to everything except the changeability itself. But the type system is part of the la

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

--- "John M. Dlugosz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "isa" as a synonym for "is" that turns on warnings is documented at > the end of my paper under "Concepts discussed in this paper that are > not on > the Synopses". Nobody's objected to it. In this group, I'm > preaching to the choir anyway.

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: "isa" as a synonym for "is" that turns on warnings is documented at the end of my paper under "Concepts discussed in this paper that are not on the Synopses". I totally agree! Using 'isa' pulls in the type checker. Do we have the same option for 'does' e.g. 'does

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote: HaloO John, interesting to note that you are now nailing down things that I'm advocating for quite a while. Are you sure that Perlkind is following? E.g. $Larry hasn't written 'isa' into S12 yet. Regards, TSa. I am listening. I'm synthesizing an

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote: HaloO, just to deepen your understanding of co- and contravariance you should digest The important point to get from it is that dispatch-relevant parameters are also covariant. Regards, TSa. T

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

HaloO John, interesting to note that you are now nailing down things that I'm advocating for quite a while. Are you sure that Perlkind is following? E.g. $Larry hasn't written 'isa' into S12 yet. Regards, TSa. -- "The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare 1 + 2 + 3 +

Re: treatment of "isa" and inheritance

HaloO, just to deepen your understanding of co- and contravariance you should digest The important point to get from it is that dispatch-relevant parameters are also covariant. Regards, TSa. -- "The unavoidable price of reliability is simplic

treatment of "isa" and inheritance

In response to questions on my whitepaper, I made this companion to bring people up to speed on the issue. "Think you know what “polymorphism” means? Well, the Object-Oriented textbooks have been keeping a dirty little secret from you. Pol