Michael Lazzaro wrote:
my int @a;
my @a returns int;
my @a is Array of int;
my @a is Array returns int;
my int @a is Array;
Those lines are all absolutely synonymous, and all declare an array of
integers, right?
Right. (This week, at least ;-)
Likewise, Arrays have methods:
my int @a = (1..100);
print @a.length; # prints "100"
my @b = @a.grep { $_ > 50 }; # gets 51..100
... which is also known, based on previous Apocalypsii.
Right.
If we accept those as valid syntax -- and I *think* they have been --
then P6 Arrays are objects. Or, at minimum, they cannot be _discerned_
from objects, regardless of implementation.
The later, I strongly suspect.
The remaining big question, then, is whether you can truly subclass
Array to achieve C<tie>-like behavior:
class MyArray is Array { ... };
my @a is MyArray;
Oh yes, I would certainly expect that this has to be possible.
Which, in turn, implies that the lines:
my Foo $a; # (1)
my $a is Foo; # (2)
my Foo $a is Foo; # (3)
are all subtly different. (2) and (3) (auto)instantiate a Foo, but (1)
does not.
Correct. Though the instantiated Foo is the "implementation object" and
not directly accessible (just as the implementation object in a Perl 5
tie isn't).
BTW, C<my Foo $a is Foo> is just sick!
(i.e. I'll *definitely* be using it ;-)
Damian
