HaloO,
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
What bugs me is a possible duplication of functionality. I believe that
declarative requirements should go on roles. And then packages could do
them, like this:
package Foo does FooMultiPrototypes {
...
}
I like this idea because it makes roles the central
HaloO,
Trey Harris wrote:
I would hate for Perl 6 to start using CAny or CWhatever in the
sort of ways that many languages abuse Object to get around the
restrictions of their type systems. I think that, as a rule, any
prototype encompassing all variants of a multi should not only
specify
TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
What bugs me is a possible duplication of functionality. I believe
that declarative requirements should go on roles. And then packages
could do them, like this:
package Foo does FooMultiPrototypes {
...
}
I like this idea because it makes roles
Aaron Sherman wrote:
TSa wrote:
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
package Foo does FooMultiPrototypes {
...
}
I like this idea because it makes roles the central bearer of type
information.
Type information is secondary to the proposal, but I'll run with what
you said.
This (the example, above)
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Actually, it's a promise made by a package (not a class) to meet the
specification given by a role (which can, and in this case probably
does, reside in a separate file - quite likely one heavily laced with
POD).
That's a fine thing to want to do.
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 28 18:53:32 2006
New Revision: 12485
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Extirpated machine-dependent definition of bit complement, noticed by audreyt++.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Actually, it's a promise made by a package (not a class) to meet the
specification given by a role (which can, and in this case probably
does, reside in a separate file - quite likely one heavily laced with
POD).
That's a fine
