--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > You're treading dangerously close to the S&M line there...
>
> Sure. That's exactly what types are for.
>
Granted.
> > Does it make sense to say C for this stuff?
>
> I'd much rather that simply using typed params i
Austin Hastings wrote:
In this case, I rather like the idea of being able to say
sub foo(@a is Array of Int) {...}
my @input = read_a_bunch_o_data();
foo(@input);
Where the compiler will automatically "wrap" the @input array in a
make-it-an-int converter. This, to me, is DWIM.
But to ma
--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > In this case, I rather like the idea of being able to say
> >
> >sub foo(@a is Array of Int) {...}
> >
> >my @input = read_a_bunch_o_data();
> >foo(@input);
> >
> >
> > Where the compiler will automaticall
Austin Hastings wrote:
But what's the vision for p6?
My expectation is that the type-checking stuff will be heavily used
for:
1- Large scale projects.
2- CPAN modules.
3- speed
When you are not on perl one liners, but maybe some inner tight loops of
some algorithm or whatever, where speed d
Austin Hastings wrote:
But what's the vision for p6?
My expectation is that the type-checking stuff will be heavily used
for:
1- Large scale projects.
2- CPAN modules.
I expect that the folks who want to do one-liners will still want to be
able to say C
So the "strict" bits have to be forgivin
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>> But what's the vision for p6? My expectation is that the
>> type-checking stuff will be heavily used
>> for:
>> 1- Large scale projects.
>> 2- CPAN modules.
>> I expect that the folks who want to do one-liners will still want
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:21:25PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: But what we can't allow is a reference parameter to coerce its argument.
: For example:
:
: sub loggedincr (Int $i is rw) {
: print $log: "Incremented $i.id()\n";
: $i++ unless $i.constant;
:
Damian Conway wrote:
> But large projects -- where typing will be most important --
> *can't* deal with that. That's the point of typing: to specify and
> enforce interface contracts. At compile-time if at all possible.
One quick question about this. If I write:
sub foo (Bar $f) {..}
my $x
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:21:25PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: But if I say:
:
: sub foo(@a is Array of Int) {...}
: ...
: foo(@x);
:
: then I'm saying: "within &foo, @a is just another name for @x". So they are
: (temporarily) the same thing. That can only (be allowed to) ha
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 06:28:00PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: > But large projects -- where typing will be most important --
: > *can't* deal with that. That's the point of typing: to specify and
: > enforce interface contracts. At compile-time if at all possible.
:
: One
--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > But what's the vision for p6?
> >
> > My expectation is that the type-checking stuff will be heavily used
> > for:
> >
> > 1- Large scale projects.
> >
> > 2- CPAN modules.
> >
> > I expect that the folks who want to
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 11:31:30AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
: "Everyone Knows" that an Int is a Scalar, and therefore a sub that has
: a Scalar parameter can safely be passed an Int. This is normal.
:
: What I want is the ability to do the opposite: Silence the warning that
: occurs when I pa
> I don't see a problem. Scalar == Int|Num|Str|Ref, so
> Scalar.isa("Int").
Scalar.isa("Int") && Int.isa("Scalar")
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:21:25PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: But if I say:
:
: sub foo(@a is Array of Int) {...}
: ...
: foo(@x);
:
: then I'm saying: "within &foo, @a is just another name for @x". So they are
: (temporarily) the same thing. That can only (be allowed to
Damian Conway:
# a) The argument passed here must be something that
# could conceivably
# not cause the program to crash and burn, and
# we'll verify that at
# run-time if necessary.
#
# or:
#
# b) The argument passed here must be something that will
# definite
Damian Conway wrote:
b) The argument passed here must be something that will definitely
not cause the program to crash and burn, and we'll verify
that at
compile-time.
I'm arguing that the former is well-nigh useless, and that the latter is
what large systems developers and
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 07:36:00PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
: I think that there should be two types of arg typing[1]: 'strict' and
: 'loose'. Strict arg typing doesn't coerce, except to turn subclasses
: into superclasses; loose arg typing, on the other hand, coerces whenever
: possible. The mech
--
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:08:15
Larry Wall wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 07:36:00PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>: I think that there should be two types of arg typing[1]: 'strict' and
>: 'loose'. Strict arg typing doesn't coerce, except to turn subclasses
>: into superclasses; loose arg typin
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:21:25PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> By distinguishing a parameter that *requires* a particular type, from
> a parameter that *ensures* a particular type (by coercion if
> necessary). I've suggested that using C semantics should
> indicate "make whatever I'm actually gi
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:52:04PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
: On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:21:25PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
:
: > By distinguishing a parameter that *requires* a particular type, from
: > a parameter that *ensures* a particular type (by coercion if
: > necessary). I've suggeste
20 matches
Mail list logo
