Mention is made of a typed undef in A12:
which doesn't quite work, because $spot is undefined. What probably happens
is that the my cheats and puts a version of undef in there that knows it
should dispatch to the Dog class if you call .self:new() on it. Anyway,
we'll make it work one way or anoth
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-23 13:33 (-0400):
> I should then be able to call class methods of Dog via $spot without further
> initialization:
> print defined($spot); # FALSE
> $rover = $spot.new;
> @breeds = $spot.list_breeds;
But shouldn't you then just use "my Class $spot = Dog" the
Juerd writes:
> Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-23 13:33 (-0400):
> > I should then be able to call class methods of Dog via $spot without further
> > initialization:
> > print defined($spot); # FALSE
> > $rover = $spot.new;
> > @breeds = $spot.list_breeds;
>
> But shouldn't you then just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
>
> which doesn't quite work, because $spot is undefined. What probably happens
> is that the my cheats and puts a version of undef in there that knows it
> should dispatch to the Dog class if you call .self:new() on it. Anyway,
> we'll make it work one
Interestingly, the opaque shortcut used to be
$class.bless(undef, *%_);
But I made it 0 instead merely because it's shorter. That does, however,
free up "undef" as a way of asking for an explicitly undefined but
blessed value.
: There are potentially two flavors of undef:
:
: undef
:
:
> -Original Message-
> From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-23 13:33 (-0400):
> > I should then be able to call class methods of Dog via $spot
> > without further initialization:
> > print defined($spot); # FALSE
> > $rover = $spot.new;
> > @br
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Interestingly, the opaque shortcut used to be
>
> $class.bless(undef, *%_);
>
> But I made it 0 instead merely because it's shorter. That does, however,
> free up "undef" as a way of asking for an explicitly undefi
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:50:42PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Sure, but "You haven't provided a value yet." doesn't seem very ...
: exceptional.
The important thing will be "You didn't provide a value at line 42, though
you didn't actually try to use it till line 582."
: Sure -- the class of
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:50:42PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : Sure, but "You haven't provided a value yet." doesn't seem very ...
> : exceptional.
>
> The important thing will be "You didn't provide a value at li
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 03:18:22PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
: > -Original Message-
: > From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: >
: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:50:42PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
: > : Sure, but "You haven't provided a value yet." doesn't seem very ...
: > : exc
"Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:50:42PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : Sure, but "You haven't provided a value yet." doesn't seem very ...
> : exceptional.
>
> The important thing will be "You didn't provide a value at line 4
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 15:46, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Just wondering, are we going to have semantics similar to the old NaN Vs
> Signaling-Nan in IEEE floating point? An IEE NaN has an N-bit field where
> the source of the NaN can place a value representing the reason for the NaN.
> It can also set a f
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 12:46:07PM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: I'm not sure how much of this is relevant to C, but it might be nice
: to have the ability to have an undef that says "if used, then trap" (using
: the current "use fail" mode -- if that still exists)
I suppose one could give a typed un
13 matches
Mail list logo
