A12 Versioning
I am not happy about the versioning proposal. While A12 listed many properties that could apply to a a module such as version, subject, author etc, the versioning declaration class Dog-1.2.1-cpan:JRANDOM; leaves me a little cold. Issues: 1) Why does this only use Version and Author? Suppose there are versions for different oses or that use other particular libraries that are wanted or not? 2) Shouldn't all these properties just be in a hash against the module rather than some having special significance? Others can then be simply added as appropriate. 3) Why is the information positional rather than by keyword property? use Dog :version«1.2.1» :author«JRANDOM» :os«cpm»; 4) What are the expected rules for versioning? While the public CPAN has one set of versioning, other projects have weird versioning rules, with letters and numbers. What would work and why? These are not fully thought through answers, but illustrate some thoughts or the matter. Richard -- Personal [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.waveney.org Telecoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.WaveneyConsulting.com Web services [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.wavwebs.com Independent Telecomms Specialist, ATM expert, Web Analyst & Services
Re: MethodMaker techniques in Perl 6
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 08:16:30PM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Abhijit A. Mahabal wrote:
>
> >>> *{"Foo::name1"} = -> $a { $a->{name1} };
> >>
> >>If I read A12 correctly, this could be written as:
> >>
> >> &Foo::$name1 := -> $a {$a.name1};
> >>
> >
> >
> >Could be; that sounds somewhat right, but could you point out where in A12
> >because a search for := revelaed nothing relevant to me.
> >
>
> Sorry, the assignment part came from A6 (and, rechecking, it seems to
> use ::= when assigning to a sub).
It all depends on what you mean. := is run-time aliasing, ::= is
compile-time aliasing. So, if it really were &Foo::name1, then ::=
would be fine, but if it were &Foo::$name then it probably needs to be
:= (I'd guess that if perl knew what $name was by the time that it
got to compiling &Foo::$name, then ::= would work just fine)
> The ability to say pkg::$name came from A12.
I'm fairly sure that you have to parenthesize interpolated things, so
all of those above should look like this:
&Foo::($name) := -> $a { $a.name1 };
See http://dev.perl.org/perl6/apocalypse/A12.html#Class_Name_Semantics
(Or was there someplace that said simple scalars need not be
parenthesized?)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A12: Exporation
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 19:52, Damian Conway wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Now, I know that the Apoc on modules has not been written, and by that
> > time Larry will have thought of this, but I thought I'd point out that
> > some mechanism will have to exist in modules to indicate not only that
> > they acquire certain subroutines, variables, etc. of other modules, but
> > that they re-export them as their own.
>
> My proposal for that issue is just:
Damian, Larry not to contradict you, but over the weekend, I had an idea
that may help (and might be tangential to the other ways of doing this).
If we have the syntax:
class a { does b; }
for classes and roles, then wouldn't it make sense to say:
module b { sub x() is export {...} }
module a { does b; }
to say that a also exports all of b's exportables (including x). In
theory that should allow a to re-export b in a structured manner,
including tags, etc.
IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS:
In a more general sense, could we say that a role is a module with a bit
of extra class-specific behavior, but the does method is defined inside
of MetaModule, and inherited by MetaRole, and overridden as invalid by
MetaClass? That is:
class MetaModule { method does() {...} }
class MetaRole { is MetaModule; }
class MetaClass {
is MetaModule;
method does() {
throw SyntaxError, "Can only call 'does' in Roles";
}
}
At least logically, though the Meta* gang might be written in Parrot or
be part of the compiler
This seems to me to be the cleanest way to have module a absorb the
calling interface of module b.
--
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 07:23:28PM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote: : Ten years ago I was perfectly happy to start all my perl programs with : /usr/bin/perl5. Today, I would be quite unhappy if I *still* needed to : do it that way. In general it's probably a lousy idea to rely on #!/usr/bin/perl6 to select language since you want the version number to select the version of Parrot you're running, not the version of Perl. One thing that occurred to me over the weekend is that we could fix all the one-liners using a similar strategy to the package/module/class switch. It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax. Any program that uses colon switches instead of minus switches would then automatically be assumed to be in Perl 6. So maybe a minimal Perl 6 marker would be something like #!/usr/bin/perl : #!/usr/bin/perl :: #!/usr/bin/perl :6 Larry
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes: > It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply > switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax. And POSIX be damned! -- A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Agent J, Men in Black
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 06:48:56PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes: : > It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply : > switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax. : : And POSIX be damned! And maybe we should rename POSIX to NEGIX while we're at it... Larry
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:44:57AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > One thing that occurred to me over the weekend is that we could fix all > the one-liners using a similar strategy to the package/module/class > switch. It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply > switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax. > Any program that uses colon switches instead of minus switches would > then automatically be assumed to be in Perl 6. I know this sounds slightly irrational but I don't like using shifted characters to offset my command line switches. Also, that colon seems *way* overloaded. :-) How about = instead? #!/usr/bin/perl = #!/usr/bin/perl =6 Although perl =P =i.bak =le '...' does look a little strange. But double the dashes for double the fun! This is perl 6! :-) -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-04-26 13:02 (-0500): > I know this sounds slightly irrational but I don't like using shifted > characters to offset my command line switches. Also, that colon seems > *way* overloaded. :-) How about = instead? Overloaded, but similar to :pairs and s:modifiers. > #!/usr/bin/perl = > #!/usr/bin/perl =6 Feels like something is missing. Like a LHS. I like - for command line switches. Juerd
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
Larry Wall wrote: In general it's probably a lousy idea to rely on #!/usr/bin/perl6 to select language since you want the version number to select the version of Parrot you're running, not the version of Perl. One thing that occurred to me over the weekend is that we could fix all the one-liners using a similar strategy to the package/module/class switch. It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax. Any program that uses colon switches instead of minus switches would then automatically be assumed to be in Perl 6. So maybe a minimal Perl 6 marker would be something like #!/usr/bin/perl : #!/usr/bin/perl :: #!/usr/bin/perl :6 Larry Uhm... What exactly is wrong with #!/usr/bin/perl -M6 ? -- Rod
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
why not add a -6 perl flag: perl -6 foo.pl perl -6e 'print "yahoo\n"' -corris On Apr 26, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Juerd wrote: Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-04-26 13:02 (-0500): I know this sounds slightly irrational but I don't like using shifted characters to offset my command line switches. Also, that colon seems *way* overloaded. :-) How about = instead? Overloaded, but similar to :pairs and s:modifiers. #!/usr/bin/perl = #!/usr/bin/perl =6 Feels like something is missing. Like a LHS. I like - for command line switches. Juerd
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
> "Larry" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Larry> It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply Larry> switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax. Larry> Any program that uses colon switches instead of minus switches would Larry> then automatically be assumed to be in Perl 6. Boy, when Larry says "I get the colon", he really had plans for it. :-) Perl8 will look like: :: : : :: :: ::: :; (note the semicolon line terminator, to be replaced by a colon in Perl9). -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
On 4/26/2004 2:16 PM, Rod Adams wrote: Larry Wall wrote: In general it's probably a lousy idea to rely on #!/usr/bin/perl6 to select language since you want the version number to select the version of Parrot you're running, not the version of Perl. One thing that occurred to me over the weekend is that we could fix all the one-liners using a similar strategy to the package/module/class switch. It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax. Any program that uses colon switches instead of minus switches would then automatically be assumed to be in Perl 6. So maybe a minimal Perl 6 marker would be something like #!/usr/bin/perl : #!/usr/bin/perl :: #!/usr/bin/perl :6 ick Uhm... What exactly is wrong with #!/usr/bin/perl -M6 What is wrong with a pragma use lang perl => 6; where the version is optional? This will still work on the commandline: perl -Mlang,perl,6 -e 'blah' it will also work in a file to allow (possibly in the future) embedding other languages or parrot assembler. It's unambiguous. It could also allow hooks for Inline::* modules to be called in the same consistent way. Randy.
