> On Oct 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, David Mertens <dcmertens.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I am writing a keyword hook, C::Blocks. I have realized that my hook could be > made more powerful if I could indicate optional type information for > variables. > > Question 1: Perl has support for declaring a variable's type, but it is > intended to be used with the fields pragma. I get the impression that this is > rarely used and I want to use it for something entirely different. Can > anybody see a problem with this?
yes, I have a problem with that. no, types are not only used for the field pragma. cperl has proper type support and any "modern perl” needs type support. B::CC, the optimizing compiler, has coretype support even in perl5. Every lexical has the optional type stash and better signature implementations set that also, so that perl5 can finally look like a modern perl as perl6 or cperl, but not like Moose/Mouse/Moo/… or even worse, old-style fields. > Question 2: I want to keep the class names for the type system relatively > short. Can anyone think of problems for names such as: > > C::double_t > C::int_t > C::IV_t See the cperl coretype names. If they are the same, use it, otherwise use your own variants. Reini Urban rur...@cpan.org
