On Wed, 5 May 2004, John Siracusa wrote:
> Anyway, once we're spelling things out, don't forget to throw in some
> traits for params that are required and must be provided as pairs.
> Damian promised! ;)
Looking thru what exists of P6C I saw this in P6C/Nodes.pm:
use Class::Struct P6C::signatur
On 5/5/04 6:24 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> To answer Dan's posting: I fully expect to never use any of these
> sigils, myself. I'm sure there will be traits for this- nice
> verbose traits. (Signatures are about as write-once as you can get...)
>
> method x(
> requires:invocant $me,
> require
I was looking at *Unit the other day, and at the very satisfying "Mock
Objects" systems that have grown up around them for automated testing.
In a Decorator/delegation context, it seems like yet another case where
there's two ways to do things:
1- In(tro)spect the classes you want to replicate/ex
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 04:25:45PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : In this case, the reliance on saying:
> :
> : if (+$x > 9) ...
> :
> : to disambiguate logical/arithmetic/string/whatever context in
> expressi
At 1:55 PM -0700 5/5/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 04:25:45PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
: In this case, the reliance on saying:
:
: if (+$x > 9) ...
:
: to disambiguate logical/arithmetic/string/whatever context in expressions is
: going to sit at cross purposes to the +-a
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 04:25:45PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
: In this case, the reliance on saying:
:
: if (+$x > 9) ...
:
: to disambiguate logical/arithmetic/string/whatever context in expressions is
: going to sit at cross purposes to the +-as-required-arg usage. It'll be yet
: anot
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:02:14AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> : > Hmm... I'm quite sure that I like ~ better than + for mnemonic
purposes.
> :
> : I agree.
>
> I think + is easier to see. Mnemonic value is a sec
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:02:14AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: > Hmm... I'm quite sure that I like ~ better than + for mnemonic purposes.
:
: I agree.
I think + is easier to see. Mnemonic value is a secondary issue in
something that will be used so heavily.
Larry
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2004-05-02
So, May Day didn't quite knock me for six this year (but being up at 4am
on Newcastle Town Moor on Saturday morning to welcome in the summer with
a bunch of rapper dancers (and no, rapper does not involve large shouty
men wearing p
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Dov Wasserman writes:
> > Since in the rest of Perl 6, the '~' operator involves string
> > representation, perhaps the standard +$foo marker should really be ~$foo:
> > i.e., $foo only has a (string) name, not a numeric position. Thus
10 matches
Mail list logo
