Darren Duncan wrote:
Now I seem to remember reading somewhere that '===' will do what I want,
but I'm now having trouble finding any mention of it.
So, what is the operator for reference comparison?
As someone who wrote a tool that uses refaddr() and 0+ in Perl 5 to
achieve the same thing, I agre
As I continue porting code to Perl 6, I found something else that the
synopsis don't seem to explain clearly.
What I want to be able to do is compare two references to see if they
point to the same thing, in this case an object, but in other cases
perhaps some other type of thing.
In synopsis
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> I'd like to annotate Perl 6 parameters and other entities using
> traits, since that's the best way (I know of) to have them appear
> immediately in the text of the program where they are.
>
> Supposing I had a "doc" trait, could I say:
>
> sub f2c (Num $temp doc)
>
Make "is" polymorphic :D
Michael
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:24:52 -0500 (EST), Abhijit Mahabal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > Chip Salzenberg writes:
> >> I'd like to annotate Perl 6 parameters and other entities using
> >> traits, since that's the best w
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
Chip Salzenberg writes:
I'd like to annotate Perl 6 parameters and other entities using
traits, since that's the best way (I know of) to have them appear
immediately in the text of the program where they are.
Supposing I had a "doc" trait, could I say:
su
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> I'd like to annotate Perl 6 parameters and other entities using
> traits, since that's the best way (I know of) to have them appear
> immediately in the text of the program where they are.
>
> Supposing I had a "doc" trait, could I say:
>
> sub f2c (Num $temp doc)
>
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 15:25, chromatic wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 13:11 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> I can't answer most of these well. However...
> Open-Closed is a great idea until the most natural and easiest way to do
> something is to to redefine a little bit of the world.
You seem
I'm no expert, but here's my take:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:11:37PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> If you declare a variable to be of a type (let's even say a class to be
> specific), then you have hinted to the compiler as to the nature of that
> variable, but nothing is certain.
>
> That is to
I'd like to annotate Perl 6 parameters and other entities using
traits, since that's the best way (I know of) to have them appear
immediately in the text of the program where they are.
Supposing I had a "doc" trait, could I say:
sub f2c (Num $temp doc)
doc
{...}
Or would I be for
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 13:11 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I can't answer most of these well. However...
> > One additional wrinkle is that *anyone* is allowed to declare a
> > class non-cooperative (open or non-final) during *any* part of the
> > compilation
>
> ... even after it is declared fina
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 11:51, Larry Wall wrote:
> my X $a;
>
> is *necessary* but not *sufficient* to do method existence testing in
> standard Perl 6 at compile time. You can do it IFF you have the class
> information AND the classes are willing to cooperate in your scheme.
> In the current
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:35:06PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Is typing optional in the sense that it is no syntax error but
: otherwise ignored? To me this is pain but no gain :(
Well, you guys keep ignoring the answer. Let me put it a bit more
mathematically. The information in
my X $
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
Remember, you can even change the class of instanced objects using
'does' (or 'but', but it'll at least copy the object). And as the
example above shows, this is statically intractable - it can happen in a
sub in a different autoloaded module.
Sorry this is a well establi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, isn't that not just the wrong way around? The point is to do the
bookkeeping that an object is needed that does .meth() and that it
is stored in $a, and to complain when that is not the case when it
should be. The earlier the better.
I don't understand why writing 'my X
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 02:37:24PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: How can you have a level independent position?
By not confusing positions with numbers. They're just pointers into
a particular string.
I'm not the Unicode guru but my understanding is that all composition
sequences are
Thomas Sandlaà wrote:
Int|Str <: Str && Str <: Int|Str && Int|Str <: Int && Int <: Int|Str
holds.
Uhh, I hardly believe that it was me writing that last night!
Int|Str is of course a proper supertype of Int and Str respectively.
So we really have: Str <: Str|Int && Int <: Str|Int, which warps us
16 matches
Mail list logo
