I apologize. I royally screwed up my original post.
I had meant to ask two minor specific yes/no answer
type questions about properties and stricture, that
were mutually unrelated. Instead I asked one major
open ended one.
In the hope that I haven't completely blown any
chance of getting answers
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 04:38:24PM -0500, Me wrote:
> Question 1:
>
> Afaict, even with use strict at its most strict, perl 6
> can't (in practice) complain, at compile time, if
>
> $foo.Foun
>
> refers to an undeclared Foun.
>
> Right?
Can't you hear the low roar from the strong-
> Question 1:
>
> Afaict, even with use strict at its most strict, perl 6
> can't (in practice) complain, at compile time, if
>
> $foo.Foun
>
> refers to an undeclared Foun.
It could certainly warn you, but it can't object fatally since there's
always the p
>> Question 2:
>>
>> Afaict, even with use strict at its most strict, perl 6
>> can't (in practice) complain, at compile time, if
>>
>> $foo.Foun
>>
>> refers to an undeclared Foun.
>
> It could certainly warn you
Consider the code:
my $foo = 1
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 04:38:24PM -0500, Me wrote:
> > Question 1:
> >
> > Afaict, even with use strict at its most strict, perl 6
> > can't (in practice) complain, at compile time, if
> >
> > $foo.Foun
> >
> > refers to an undeclared Foun.
> >
> > Right?
>
> Can't you hear the
> Consider the code:
>
> my $foo = 1 is Found;
> &bar($foo);
>
> sub bar { my $baz = shift; if ($baz.Found) { ...} }
>
> Does the value of $baz have the Found property?
Yes.
> If so, does the compiler know that?
No. Because it only has the property at
>> Consider the code:
>>
>> my $foo = 1 is Found;
>> &bar($foo);
>>
>> sub bar { my $baz = shift; if ($baz.Found) { ...} }
>>
>> Does the value of $baz have the Found property?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If so, does the compiler know that?
>
> No. Because i
> So, is it right to say that one can't use stricture to avoid
> use of mistyped user defined value attached properties?
> (Perhaps with the exception of references to a value
> property in the same lexical scope as assignments of
> that value?)
>
> And, if this is so, then i
>> And, if this is so, then isn't it impossible to have useful
>> stricture about variable properties, because any given
>> reference to a property might be instead a value property
>> unknown to the compiler?
>
> Yes.
So:
You can't have (variable or value) property strictur
Me wrote:
>
> Question 1:
>
> Afaict, even with use strict at its most strict, perl 6
> can't (in practice) complain, at compile time, if
>
> $foo.Foun
>
> refers to an undeclared Foun.
>
> Right?
it is already detectable. from perldoc perlref:
Perl will raise an except
> > Afaict, even with use strict at its most strict, perl 6
> > can't (in practice) complain, at compile time, if
> >
> > $foo.Foun
> >
> > refers to an undeclared Foun.
>
> it is already detectable. from perldoc perlref:
Perhaps for perl 5, but, aiui, Damian confirmed
that my thi
Damian Conway wrote:
> I very much doubt Perl is going to become significantly more statically
> analyzable in general. Though static determinacy is obviously a
> desirable thing, there are plenty of other B&D
Bondage and Discipline?
> languages that offer it
> in abundance. And the dynamic pow
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 01:37:23AM -0500, Me wrote:
> > B&D languages
>
> What's B&D?
Bondage and Discipline, scum! You're not a good enough programmer to
be trusted not to make mistakes! Now drop and give me fifty!
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwe
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 01:37:23AM -0500, Me wrote:
>
> > Larry's MMV on that ;-)
>
> Man I really need to get up to speed with these
> acronyms. I know YMMV, is MMV a distant
> cousin perhaps?
Same idea, except it's Larry's Milage in question, rather than Yours.
dha
--
David H. Adler - <[EM
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 01:37:23AM -0500, Me wrote:
> > > B&D languages
> >
> > What's B&D?
>
> Bondage and Discipline, scum! You're not a good enough programmer to
> be trusted not to make mistakes! Now drop and give me fifty!
Hmmm...
Me wrote:
> I.Found your notion of a "sealed off namespace"
> intriguing. I have no idea what it meant just yet;
> I'm going to go read and think about it now.
I'll pitch some syntax:
# prevent modification to %reflexive:: like so:
package reflexive is closed;
# allow i
16 matches
Mail list logo
