On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:50:21PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote: > What's the alternative? > I don't think it's a good idea to special-case numeric types, and I > don't think it's a good idea to define multis for each numeric type either. > > I assume that 'Num' is meant to be a non-complex. > Then it seems to make sense to assume: > Int is Rat > Rat is Num > Num is Complex > or am I off again?
Yeah, that looks sane. I should probably put Int under Rat in p6types, and maybe Num under Complex. I believe an implementation can choose to do the inheritance either way: Rat is Num Rat is Any does Num Since both of those end up looking the same to the user, more or less. I tended to use the first form in p6types. > Anyway, for our work in the test suite it would be nice to have it > specced somewhere. Or should I rely on Ryan's docs/p6types? If so, it > would be nice to convert it to format that can smartlinked to. Since it's unofficial and (in theory) just repeats what's in the synopses I don't think tests should refer to it. Or someone could make an S30 (Standard perl library) out of it. -ryan
