Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Errr. I would imagine that $ME contains:
>
> * a reference to the object, within an object method
>
> * the name of the class, within a class method
>
> * a reference to the *subroutine* itself, within a non-method.
Ooh, recursive a
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =item *
>
> Changes to the semantics of C so that, after associating an
> object with a class, the class's C methods are automatically
> called on the object. An additional trailing C<@> parameter for
> C, to allow arguments to be passed to C met
Markus Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On 22.08.2000 18:24 Uhr + David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> >
> > Regardless of what its called, in a method called as a subroutine,
> > the variable could refer to the last instance of this kind of object
> > used by this thread.
>
> Hmm Does that m
Nathan Wigner in the guise of Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can use facilities such as C to help fix this issue, but
> C is limited and slow. You can also overload operators, but
> this is not flexible enough for many applications since it applies
> to a package (and not in
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> my Dog $spot should call a constructor implicitly
Eeeeww. Most of the time I use 'my Dog $spot' is along the lines
of:
package Dog;
Hildo Biersma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many people see even this as a bad choice, saying that 'explicit' should
> be the default, and that C++ constructors should be marked 'implicit'
> for this behavior to be allowed.
Hmmm... having 'explicit' be implicit and vice versa? I think my head
may
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> >
> > Eeeeww. Most of the time I use 'my Dog $spot' is along the lines
> > of:
> >
> > my Dog $spot = Dog::Dalmation->new(name => 'Spot');
> >
Hildo Biersma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> >> =head1 DESCRIPTION
> >
> > What is currently an optimization for pseudo-hashes:
> >
> > my Dog $spot = Dog->new();
> >
> > should be replaced with:
> >
> > my Dog $spot;
> >
> > which calls an implicit constr
Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 09:34:12AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Because, hopefully, there are efficiency gains to be had when perl
> > *knows* that $self is a Dog. If it only makes the 'name' method
> > cal
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First off, I think everyone is reading this RFC with the wrong mindset,
> forgetting the concept of embedded objects in Perl 6.
Ah, that dumb idea again.
> I believe the idea would be that CREATE is a *fundamental* method, like
> DESTROY, that would do
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =head2 RFC 171 (v1): my Dog $spot should call a constructor implicitly
> (Michael Fowler)
>
> This proposed a C++ like constructor mechanism whereby the declaration
> of a variable implicitly creates an object. This mechanism would allow
> for declaratio
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =head2 RFC 137 (v1): Perl OO should I be fundamentally changed
> (Damian Conway)
>
> This RFC explored several extensions to current Perl OO in order to make
> it more powerful, without sacrificing its current simplicity or
> flexibility. Unfortunately,
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> =head1 TITLE
>>
>> C should simply assert that
>> C<(!defined($spot) || $spot-Eisa('Dog'))>
>>
>> And let them duke it out.
>
> You'd have my support for that...I was intending to release an RFC
> in the next day or two that
Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 10:22:49AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > And then there's:
> >
> > - Makes factory methods impossible.
>
> my Dog $spot;
> my $pub = $spot->procreate;
>
> Sure lo
Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 12:42:52PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > But now you're throwing away the kid with the bathwater.
> >
> > my Dog $spot;
> >
> > initially was syntax invented so that $spot was marked as only been ably
> > to reference a Do
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> >
> > > First off, I think everyone is reading this RFC with the wrong mindset,
> > > forgetting the concept of embedded objects in Perl 6.
> >
> > Ah, that dumb idea again.
>
>
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But I agree that anything beyond that is simply horrible.
>> > You'll only drive more people *away* from OO, because it
>> > generates so horribly inefficient code. If you want a
>> > constructor called, than FGS *call* a constructor.
Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 05:23:27PM +0200, Slaven Rezic wrote:
> > Often, there is the case that "my" is used before actually assigning a
> > value to it. For example:
> >
> > my Foo $foo;
> > if ($cond1) {
> > $foo = new Foo 1, 2, 3;
> >
"David E. Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1 Sep 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> > This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> > http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
> >
> > =head1 TITLE
> >
> > Objects : Private keys and methods
>
> Here, here & amen, Damian! This one gets my insta
John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/1/00 4:59 PM, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > Once a hash has been C-ized, the only way to extend its set of
> > entries is via another call to C:
> >
> > sub new {
> > my ($class, %self) = @_;
> > bless private \%self, $class;
> >
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But I've gotta nitpick the name. I wonder if BLESS wouldn't be better?
>> print calls PRINT, printf calls PRINTF, even if the subs don't do any
>> printing. Sure makes it easier to see what's going on, to me at least.
>
> But BLESS doesn't
Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:34:37AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > >> Well then, that's one nay vote. :)
> > >
> > > Make that two.
> >
> > Three. But I think Michael already knew a
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:53:39PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > Objects : Core support for method delegation
>
> I like it! One gripe (of course)...
>
>
> > The proposed delegation mechanism would work via a pragma:
> >
> > use del
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Objects : Core support for method delegation
I *want* this. Delegation is cool. Delegation that gets set up at
compile time and is marked as such
=head1 TITLE
C is just an assertion
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12th September 2000
Last Modified: 12th September 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 0
Status: Draft
=head1 ABSTRACT
The behaviour of the syntax should simply
=head1 TITLE
new pragma: C
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12th September 2000
Last Modified: 12th September 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 0
Status: Draft
=head1 ABSTRACT
Cnew>
is a pain in the bum to type.
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers wrote:
>
>> The behaviour of the syntax should simply be an
>> assertion of the invariant:
>>
>>(!defined($spot) || (ref($spot) $spot->isa('Dog)))
>
> (!defined($spot) || (ref($spot) && $spot->isa('Dog')))
>
>
>
Hildo Biersma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> > =head1 ABSTRACT
> >
> > Cnew>
> > is a pain in the bum to type. We should replace this with
> >
> > use namespace 'Big::Long::Prefix';
> > my ::Class $o
Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would suggest that anyone want to contribute to this discussion should
> first read the thread about the addition of this pragma to perl5 in
> the perl5-porters archives
>
>
>http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/cgi-bin/w3glimpse/perl5-porters?query=use+namespa
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> C is just an assertion
>
> =head1 VERSION
>
> Maintainer: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
> > I therefore propose that C comes to mean that C<$spot>
> > is restricted to being either undefined or a reference to a C
> > object (or any subclasses of Dog). Simply having this implicit
> > assertion can be useful t
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >
> > Yes! I mentioned the hypothetical
> > use strict 'types';
> > which would require all variables assigned to/from an object, and
> > all variables upon which method calls are made, to be typed like
> > this. Then the
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:43:43PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > The behaviour of the syntax should simply be an
> > assertion of the invariant:
> >
> >(!defined($spot) || (ref($spot) && $spot->isa('Dog)))
>
> What about the current
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:19:38PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > package Dog;
> > > use fields qw(this night up);
> > >
> >
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers wrote:
>
>> I'm kind of tempted to look at adding another pragma to go with 'use
>> base' along the lines of:
>>
>> use implements 'Interface';
>>
>> Which is almost entirely like C but with
>> 'Interface' cons
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 08:13 AM 9/15/00 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> >Piers wrote:
> >
> >> I'm kind of tempted to look at adding another pragma to go with 'use
> >> base' along the lines of:
> >>
> >> use implements 'Interface';
> >>
> >> Which
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:48:27AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Nope. fields::new() basically just does C > > [\%{"$class\::FIELDS"}], $class>
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for getting this RFC together, Piers.
>
> A few comments:
>
> * I suggest you remove my alternative C<:must(Foo)> suggestion.
> It's too ugly to live, inless you just want to use it as a
> scare tactic to encourage Lar
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * The new C keyword would be unnecessary if *package
> > specifications* could take attributes:
> >
> > interface Fetcher;
> >
> > would then become:
> >
> > package Fetcher : interface;
>
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By specifying "use interface" explicitly, you can make sure that your
> class follows the interface spec. Otherwise, you rely on other classes
> in the hierarchy above you doing so, and then you indirectly inheriting
> from that interface. So "use interf
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 10:45:05AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Whoa Nellie. When did we get prototyping for methods.
>
> We've had prototyping (context coercing) for methods as long as we've
> had them fo
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I didn't see any mention of my plea that C should pass the
> original variable being tied as one of its arguments. :-(
>
> E.g.:
>
> sub ReadOnly::TIESCALAR {
> my ($class, $original, @otherargs) = @_;
> bless {
>
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =head1 ABSTRACT
>
> Currently, Perl 5 makes a distinction between routines called in the
> indirect object vs. function form:
>
>$r = new CGI; # CGI->new
>$r = new CGI (@args); # CGI->new(@args)
>$r = new(CGI @args); # mai
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >package Doggie;
> > >
> > >sub isborn {
> > >bless { @_ }, self; # ;-)
> > >}
> > >sub scratches ($\@;@) {
> > >...
> > >}
> > >
> > >
> > >package Doggie::Cute;
> > >
> > >use base 'Doggie';
> > >use
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 07:20:08AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> > RFC 189 covers this.
>
> So it does! Cool, I can withdraw mine *and* get the warm fuzzy feeling that
> comes from like-thinking-of-great-minds.
>
> RFC 307 is withdrawn!
I do like the
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Transparently integrate C
On the whole I think I'm liking this. But it needs work.
>my packed $a; # just an assertion, RFC 218
>$a
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm kind of curious to know what you think would happen with the
> > following. I've commented where I'm confident...
> >
> > interface Number;
> > sub TIESCALAR;
> > sub STORE;
> > sub FETCH;
> >
> > package integer implements Nu
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > Not an awful lot was said once this RFC was condensed down to "Everything
> > becomes an object". I believe some implementation and conceptual hurdles
> > exist which have discourag
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Class Methods Introspection: what methods does this object support?
>
> =head1 VERSION
>
> Maintainer: Mark Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johan Vromans) writes:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Actually, I'd like to see something similar done to Universal::can
>
> my @methods = $class->can(pattern)
>
> where pattern is a perl pattern matchin
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Java is one language that springs to mind that uses interface
> > polymorphism. Don't let this put you off -- if we must steal something
> > from Java let's steal something good.
>
> Interface inheritance is probably the least dignified thing to steal
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Class Collections: Provide the ability to overload classes
>
> =head1 VERSION
>
> Maintainer: Greg Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 17 Se
Greg Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:01 +0100 2000/10/02, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >Hmm... I'm really not keen on this idea. Not keen at all. And I can't
> >for the life of me see what's wrong with just making a factory method
> >(
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Interface polymorphism considered lovely
>
> [...]
>
>
> =head1 IMPLEMENTATION
>
> I have some ideas about this, and I believe it may be possibl
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 04:21 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
>>So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might
>>be coming forth? (I know, I know, here I am, a smalltalker, asking for
>>operator overloading ... but, what are the smalltalkers g
55 matches
Mail list logo
