Synposis 10...
abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
bytes, kilobyte;
replace the last line with:
&kilobytes := &kilobyte;
and the scoping is not an issue.
And with synonyms, binding as soon as declaring seems prudent.
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
x27;t topicalize the invocant nowadays? I had
thought that they do and one needs the ./ to still talk about the invocant
if some inner loop stole the $_, and until such stealing occurs .foo() and
./foo() are the same...
--abhijit
Damian
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
ays $_.method
./method is always $?SELF.method )
Yes, I like it a lot!
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
ke a topic. This is not
better than $o/$O, except that $__ looks more like $_ (but maybe it looks
too much like $_, and that alone could invalidate this proposal).
Comments?
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
On Mon, 2 May 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
Tell me what this does:
class Tree { method bark() { die "Cannot instantiate a Tree--it is
abstract!" }
}
class Birch { method bark() { return "White, papery" }
}
class Oak { method bark() { return "Da
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
innocuous in that sense, and I don't think that is
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:28:41PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
so we had junctions of Code references some days ago, what's with
junctions of Class and Role objects? :)
Could we see some code that shows
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:58, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
It also might be useful for roles to be able to delete members and
methods from a class like so:
role foo {
has $.x;
has
, it
seems that the role would need to be the boss on "deleting decisions".
Could get pretty confusing!
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
Chip Salzenberg writes:
I'd like to annotate Perl 6 parameters and other entities using
traits, since that's the best way (I know of) to have them appear
immediately in the text of the program where they are.
Supposing I had a "doc" trait, could I say:
su
Another edge case: is it legal to have an optional Pair in the
signature? That is:
sub foo($x, Pair ?$y, +$z){...}
If yes, what does this parse as:
foo(10, z => 5);
If z => 5 is bound to $y, then $y is almost mandatory. ('almost' because
we can still say foo(10); ). (and then can we als
I was thinking about how binding of arguments to parameters in a
sub/method call would happen. Seems to be a darn tricky thing with all
sorts of potential pitfalls!
I have a few questions. Consider the following piece of code. Are my
expectations correct?
sub foo($x, $y, *%slurp) { $x + $y }
s
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:05:32AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
: Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can
: have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1,
: side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which will not be
David Storrs wrote:
On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I think that "slackness-on-demand" is a better policy than
"strictness-on-demand", but that, again, is just my opinion
Until now, the policy in Perl has always been that it is as slack and
forgiving
David Storrs wrote:
Incidentally, I just want to go on record as saying that the verbosity
of class declarations in P6 is really starting to skeeve me. I keep
reminding myself that these are the edge cases that are being discussed,
that you don't need all this stuff for the common case (right?)
Dave Whipp wrote:
Attributes are declared with C, but also have a unique signil
C<$.>. So is it strictly necessary to declare them? Or rather, is it
Cly necessary -- i.e. is the following legal?
no strict;
class Foo {
method bar {
say $.a++
}
}
For the standard layout, I'd think it'd be g
Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can
have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1,
side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which will not be
needed for most instances of Geometry::Triangle.
I know how this can be done in P5. Using
cause we'd be saying
$current_obj.cast($otherclass), and $otherclass would know it's own
layout.
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
;t know if it is doable or even desirable, but it sure
is cool!
Larry
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
: None of the synopses have anything like this. S6 talks about the
: types of values, but not keys. Oversight, or is this syntax dead?
S9 talk about it.
Oops. Sorry. So it was oversight after all :)
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu
A6 included examples of syntax for specifying the type of the key for a
hash:
my %pet is Hash(keytype => Str, returns => Cat)
None of the synopses have anything like this. S6 talks about the
types of values, but not keys. Oversight, or is this syntax dead?
--abhijit
Abhijit Mahabal
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Damian Conway wrote:
> Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
>
> > I am a little confused if the following is valid perl6:
> >
> > our &xsub = { $x };
>
> No. Illegal attempt to assign to a reference. You want aliasing/binding
> instead:
>
>o
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, David Christensen wrote:
Incidentally, just like mathematically (albeit slightly loosely) an element
of a set can be thought of as a function from any singleton, would it be
possible for Perl 6 to provide a fast (under the syntactical point of view)
way to promote a term to
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
> I was thinking about removing files this morning, and realized that I
> wish rm supported inclusion/exclusion.
>
> In particular, I wanted to remove "* but not Makefile" (since my
> Makefile uses lwp-download to re-fetch the source code, etc.)
>
> It
e role itself, and if the class
has a $.foo, it takes precedence" does not work because $.foo may have
been added by another role.
Abhijit Mahabal http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
>>in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
>>literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
>>the docs in the same file as
27 matches
Mail list logo
