On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:29:38PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> >Finally, it would get tedious to write them out by hand. So a lexical
> >"traits" pragma may help:
> >
> > {
> > # Entering the realm of referential transparency...
> > use traits < defined typed constant >;
> > my $x; # automagically receives the three traits
> >
> > {
> > # Falls back to the dynamic world...
> > no traits < typed constant >;
> > my $y;
> > }
> > }
> >
> >Does this sound sane?
>
> To me it sounds more superfluous. What distinguishes
> 'referential transparency' from 'the dynamic world'?
I think that's because you live in the static realm already. :)
my $x is typed;
$x = "123";
$x = length($x);
Would be a type error. If it's in the dynamic world (as in Perl5),
that's just fine. Does that difference make sense to you?
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgpW2Ryj2YhWi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
