On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Jon Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > > > TSa wrote: > > > I totally agree! Using 'isa' pulls in the type checker. Do we have the > > > same option for 'does' e.g. 'doesa'? Or is type checking always implied > > > in role composition? Note that the class can override a role's methods > > > at will. > > > > It occurs to me that this shouldn't be new keywords, but adverbs, i.e. > ``is > > :strict Dog''. > > Agreed. I'm definitely in the category of people who find the > difference between "is" and "isa" to be, as Larry put it, eye-glazing. > I can follow it, but that's only because I've been getting a crash > course in type theory.
+1 > Brandon's alternative has the potential to be less confusing given the > right choice of adverb, and has the added bonus that the same adverb > could apply equally well to both 'is' and 'does'. > > On a side note, I'd like to make a request of the Perl 6 community > with regard to coding style: could we please have adverbal names that > are, well, adverbs? "is :strict Dog" brings to my mind the English > "Fido is a strict dog", rather than "Fido is strictly a dog". Not > only is "is :strictly Dog" more legible, but it leaves room for the +1 > possible future inclusion of adjective-based syntax such as "big Dog" > (which might mean the same thing as "Dog but is big" or "Dog where > .size > Average"). To misquote Einstein, things should be as simple > as is reasonable, but not simpler. and can I add another quote, from someone who's last name is appropriate ;) 'Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.' (Alan Perlis) cheers, Jim Fuller
