On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I believe they are all set in (reasonably hard) stone. (1) is from A2/E2, and is set in granite. The other forms came post-Zurich, AFAIK -- a quick search for them finds a p6l note from Larry dated 10/10/02 ("Re: Object Instanciation") that mentions them in the larger context of how objects work. (It has also been confirmed by Allison and Damian at various points, but I don't think there's ever been a post-Zurich thread devoted to it.)On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:04:09AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:Let's operate from the assumption -- or somebody please CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- that the following syntax is valid:my int @a; # 1 my @a returns int; # 2 my @a is Array of int; # 3 my @a is Array returns int; # 4 my int @a is Array; # 5 Those lines are all absolutely synonymous, and all declare an array of integers, right?Doesn't jive with me. I'm not sure what "returns int" means and numbers 5 and 1 don't read well. The first one says (to me) that this thing called @a is an int. It doesn't say anything about the contents of @a. #5 has the same problem. If this is one of those set-in-molded-clay kinds of things, someone please point me at the relevant discussion.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure they're accurate.
MikeL
