Hi,
"TSa (Thomas SandlaÃ)" wrote:
> you wrote:
>> I wondered if it would be useful/good/nice if the syntax for
>> specifying role parameters would be the same as the standard
>> subroutine signature syntax (minus the colon, which
>> separates the parameters which do account to the long name
>> of the role from the ones which don't).
>
> Hmm, first you exclude the colon, then you use it the example??
I meant: The colon should still act as the delimiter between the params
which account to the long name of the role and those which don't, but
otherwise the syntax should be the same as the standard subroutine
signature syntax, allowing optional params, etc.
> I for my part hope that roles are---among other things---parametric
> types. This means that in the brackets one should find type variables,
> value variables and possibly recursive constraints. E.g.
>
> role Ordered[::Type does Ordered[Type]]
> {
> multi method infix:{'<='} ( T $x, T $y ) returns bit
s/T/::Type/?
[...]
--Ingo
--
Linux, the choice of a GNU | To understand recursion, you must first
generation on a dual AMD | understand recursion.
Athlon! |
