(Sorry for replying _so_ late...)
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I kinda like Autrijus's idea that "meta" just means "guts". In
classical Greek, "meta" just means "with". The fancy philosophical
meaning of "aboutness" isn't there, but is a backformation from
terms such as metaphysics.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:35:14AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:32:01PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> > you wrote:
> > >Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
> > >with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
> >
> > Counting the sigil qua
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
It might be a mistake to call these isa relationships though. I really
only care about
Package does Object.
Module does Package.
Role does Module.
Class does Role.
OK, I've added that and the Set type in my little type lattice.
With your Object still
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:24:11AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:12:45AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > We can get away with this in Perl 6 because bindings to positionals
: > happen lazily. So all we have to check for syntactically is that we
: > don't have a subsequent d
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:54:54PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: Let me make sure I understand this.
:
: Package is an Object.
: Module is a Package.
: Class is a Package.
: Role is a Package.
I think of it more like:
Package is an Object.
Module is a Package.
Class is a Module.
TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you wrote:
> > Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
> > with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
>
> Counting the sigil quadriga as 4, what is the fifth element?
> And $it.does(LookGood)?
$ @ % & ::
--
Brent 'Dax' R
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:32:01PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> you wrote:
> >Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
> >with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
>
> Counting the sigil quadriga as 4, what is the fifth element?
& @ $ % ::
In Perl5, :: is replac
HaloO Autrijus,
you wrote:
Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
Counting the sigil quadriga as 4, what is the fifth element?
And $it.does(LookGood)?
--
$TSa.greeting := "HaloO"; # mind the echo!
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/10/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is an example of a 2D distance method
role Point
{
has Num $.x;
has Num $.y;
}
method distance( Point $a, Point $b --> Num )
{
return sqrt( ($a.x - $b.x)**2 - ($a.y - $b.y)**2);
}
[..]
# This
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:12:45AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> We can get away with this in Perl 6 because bindings to positionals
> happen lazily. So all we have to check for syntactically is that we
> don't have a subsequent declaration that changes the syntax from list
> to unary (or none-ary).
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:47:47AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-08-09 16:19 (-0700):
: > So either something in the context tells us what "Foo" means, or
: > it will be taken as a list operator that hasn't been declared yet.
:
: Is there, by the way, a pragma to force predeclarati
On 8/10/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is an example of a 2D distance method
>
>role Point
>{
> has Num $.x;
> has Num $.y;
>}
>method distance( Point $a, Point $b --> Num )
>{
> return sqrt( ($a.x - $b.x)**2 - ($a.y - $b.y)**2);
>}
>
> Now comes
HaloO Stevan,
you wrote:
I hope that .isa, .does and .meta are normal Method subtypes and *not*
slots on some implementation objects/structures.
I am not sure I understand this. Can you elaborate?
With pleasure!
OK, where do I start? ...
The origin of OO stems from the need to organize da
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 06:03:18AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 8/10/05, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But it's an toplevel optimization, which is not applicable to
> > module authors. So I'd very much welcome a lexical pragma that
> > forces static binding of subroutine calls.
>
On 8/10/05, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it's an toplevel optimization, which is not applicable to
> module authors. So I'd very much welcome a lexical pragma that
> forces static binding of subroutine calls.
Yeah, but the whole point of not allowing that is so that you can
over
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:47:47AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Larry Wall skribis 2005-08-09 16:19 (-0700):
> > So either something in the context tells us what "Foo" means, or
> > it will be taken as a list operator that hasn't been declared yet.
>
> Is there, by the way, a pragma to force predeclarati
Larry Wall skribis 2005-08-09 16:19 (-0700):
> So either something in the context tells us what "Foo" means, or
> it will be taken as a list operator that hasn't been declared yet.
Is there, by the way, a pragma to force predeclaration of subs, to gain
compile time typo checking?
Juerd
--
http:
Larry,
On Aug 9, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: >So far, this is what I have picked up; some/most of it is probably
: >wrong:
: >
: >~ Foo ~
: >Is a type that variables etc. can be declared to have
:
: That is one way to look at it I suppose. The reality is that there
will
: be no actua
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:54:23PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: Stuart,
:
: On Aug 9, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Stuart Cook wrote:
: >Stevan,
: >
: >Up until today, I thought I had a good idea of how your metamodel
: >works, but now I'm confused. My main sticking point is that a class
: >Foo seems to ha
On Aug 9, 2005, at 10:52 AM, TSa wrote:
~ Foo ~
Is a type that variables etc. can be declared to have
Is not an object
=> I'm really not sure about this...
Bare Foo is a namespace lookup.
Yes, TSa is right. Everything below this is Type-stuff and I will leave
that to him (up until the Met
On Aug 9, 2005, at 12:36 PM, TSa wrote:
HaloO Stevan,
you wrote:
Guten Tag Herr Sandlaß,
you know that a formal German greeting in a collequial
environment can be interpreted as unfriendly? I don't
do that but just wanted to state the fact.
My apologies, no unfriendliness intended :)
The
Stuart,
On Aug 9, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Stuart Cook wrote:
Stevan,
Up until today, I thought I had a good idea of how your metamodel
works, but now I'm confused. My main sticking point is that a class
Foo seems to have three different aspects:
Foo
class(Foo)
meta(Foo)
For each of these, could yo
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 06:36:28PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> But Smalltalk is a typeless language that dispatches along the lines
> of the (meta)class/(meta)object links. I propose to call this kind
> of thing slot dispatch and reserve single and multi method dispatch for
> the type based approach. Don't
HaloO Stevan,
you wrote:
Guten Tag Herr Sandlaß,
you know that a formal German greeting in a collequial
environment can be interpreted as unfriendly? I don't
do that but just wanted to state the fact.
The next level where a 1:n relation exists is below meta(Foo) to pure
meta.
Not entirel
HaloO,
Stuart Cook wrote:
So far, this is what I have picked up; some/most of it is probably wrong:
At least your confusion matches nicely with mine :)
~ Foo ~
Is a type that variables etc. can be declared to have
Is not an object
=> I'm really not sure about this...
Bare Foo is a names
Guten Tag Herr Sandlaß,
On Aug 9, 2005, at 4:48 AM, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
HaloO,
Stevan Little wrote:
Here is a 10,000 ft view of the metamodel prototype I sketched out
the other day
(http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel/docs/
10_000_ft_view.pod). It should shed a li
Stevan,
Up until today, I thought I had a good idea of how your metamodel
works, but now I'm confused. My main sticking point is that a class
Foo seems to have three different aspects:
Foo
class(Foo)
meta(Foo)
For each of these, could you please try to explain:
1) Roughly what its responsibilit
HaloO,
Stevan Little wrote:
Here is a 10,000 ft view of the metamodel prototype I sketched
out the other day
(http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel/docs/
10_000_ft_view.pod). It should shed a little light on this discussion.
There you have
i(Foo) - instance of Foo
, at 4:26 PM, Mark Reed wrote:
Coming in late here, but it seems odd to have an actual class called
"MetaClass". The meta-object protocols with which I am familiar have
the
concept of a metaclass (a class whose instances are themselves
classes), and
the class Class is such a meta
Mark,
On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Mark Reed wrote:
Coming in late here, but it seems odd to have an actual class called
"MetaClass". The meta-object protocols with which I am familiar have
the
concept of a metaclass (a class whose instances are themselves
classes), and
the clas
Coming in late here, but it seems odd to have an actual class called
"MetaClass". The meta-object protocols with which I am familiar have the
concept of a metaclass (a class whose instances are themselves classes), and
the class Class is such a metaclass, but where does a class named
Hello All,
Since autrijus is now busy porting the P5 metamodel prototype into
Haskell for use in Pugs, I have decided to begin work on documenting
the Perl6::MetaModel prototype modules more thoroughly. The first step
I see in this is to define a Meta Object Protocol (aka - the stuff you
can
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, 5:45:33 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 08:49 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
> No, I think Java interfaces are a kluge to get around copying a broken
> type system and the lack of multiple inheritance.
There are other alternatives..
things that a Window does," e.g., "$anon->implements('Window')".
So a class shouldn't inherit from an interface. It should assert
that it implements it.
Totally on track. I'd like to also rehash what Mr. Goldberg was getting
at:
One of the very useful
On Jul 24, chromatic wrote:
> On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 05:28 PM, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> >If this were Java, the way to do this would be to define a Thingie
> >interface, and then an (archetypical) ThingieObject class... any time
> >that we want to actually *create* Thingies, we would use
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 05:28 PM, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
If this were Java, the way to do this would be to define a Thingie
interface, and then an (archetypical) ThingieObject class... any time
that we want to actually *create* Thingies, we would use "new
ThingieObject", but everywhere el
Chromatic wrote:
[snip]
> > I think you want to declare "I comply with ruleset X" at the callee
> > object level. That enables the compiler to (1) check that you're not
> > lying; and (2) optimize based on (1).
>
> At least one of us is using "caller/callee" in the X11 sense. What I
> mean and wh
uot;interfaces" to me.
Follow the thread back. Objective-C had them way first, and their
ur-name is "protocols."
- Kurt
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> >> No, I think Java interfaces are a kluge to get around copying a
> >> broken type system and the lack of multiple inheritance.
> >
> > Mult
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
No, I think Java interfaces are a kluge to get around copying a
broken type system and the lack of multiple inheritance.
Multiple Inheritance != Protocols | Interfaces
I quite agree, but I've done enough Java to know that if
that interface equivalence were
> >> checked before inheritance, as per Luke's idea.
> >
> > Sounds like you want Java-style "interfaces" to me.
>
> No, I think Java interfaces are a kluge to get around copying a
> broken type system and the lack of multipl
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 08:49 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 05:57 PM, chromatic wrote:
The first is a deeper question -- besides inheritance, there's
delegation, aggregation, and reimplementation (think mock objects)
that can make two classes have equivalent i
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 09:25 AM, Kurt Starsinic wrote:
Sounds like you want Java-style "interfaces" to me.
Follow the thread back. Objective-C had them way first, and their
ur-name is "protocols."
D'oh! Sorry, I had read that, but then forgot.
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 05:57 PM, chromatic wrote:
The first is a deeper question -- besides inheritance, there's
delegation, aggregation, and reimplementation (think mock objects)
that can make two classes have equivalent interfaces. I'd like some
way to mark this equivalence *withou
interface equivalence.
Take, for example, an object that combines a FloorWax and a
DessertTopping. Delegation's the way to go here, but if I have to
inherit from both FloorWax and DessertTopping to signify that the
object (somehow) implements both protocols appropriately, there are
subtle
On 19 Jul 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> [1] It would be totally cool to use a Haskell- or ML-style type
> inference system, but those things just don't work in procedural
> languages.
Could you clarify what you mean by "don't work" here? ML has both
assignment and type inference, so it seems like it
Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
[1] It would be totally cool to use a Haskell- or ML-style type
inference system, but those things just don't work in procedural
languages.
And they're very slow when not done at compile-time. Try a Haskell
interpreter like hugs vs. a Haskell compiler like ghc.
Steffen
--
I've been looking around Objective-C a bit, and I would like to turn
over an old rock.
Remember when I suggested that (static) type equivalence should be
based on interface equivalence? Objective-C seems to feel the same
way. It calls an interface a I, and specifying it is
optional. This maps n
48 matches
Mail list logo
