Darren Duncan wrote: > Jon Lang wrote: >> Larry Wall wrote: >>> This is basically a non-problem. Junctions have one public method, >>> .eigenstates, which is vanishingly unlikely to be used by accident by >>> any mere mortal any time in the next 100 years, give or take a year. >>> If someone does happen to be programming quantum mechanics in Perl 6, >>> they're probably smart enough to work around the presence of a >>> reserved--well, it's not even a reserved word-- a reserved method name. >> >> Actually, the problem isn't with '.eigenstates'; the problem is with >> '.perl'. If I'm viewing a Junction of items as a single indeterminate >> item, I'd expect $J.perl to return a Junction of the items' perl by >> default. Admittedly though, even that isn't much of an issue, seeing >> as how you _can_ get that result by saying something to the effect of >> "Junction of $J.eigenstates.«perl" - the only tricky part being how to >> decide which kind of junction to use (e.g., any, all, one, none) when >> putting the perl-ized eigenstates back together. (And how _would_ you >> do that?) This would represent another corner-case where the >> programmer would be tripped up by a simplistic understanding of what a >> Junction is; but being a corner-case, that's probably acceptable. > > I would assume that invoking .perl on a Junction would result in Perl code > consisting of the appropriate any/all/etc expression. -- Darren Duncan
Tough to parse, though; and feels like a kludge. I expect better of Perl 6. -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
