(Ditto remark here as the posting I just sent: Please direct any followup
privately)
>From: "Stanislav Malyshev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> TS>>An advantage of function objects in C++ is that they can be used where
> TS>>functions are expected. Nevertheless, there are some features that can
be
>
> Dep
>From: "Stanislav Malyshev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> TS>>No, you don't have to go that far. For starters, one could allow
function
> TS>>(and possibly operator) overloading, based on type hints. The
following is
> TS>>legal PHP5:
>
> That will already open the can of worms. And make each function cal
TS>>An advantage of function objects in C++ is that they can be used where
TS>>functions are expected. Nevertheless, there are some features that can be
Depending on what you mean of "expected". You can't use such object as a
function pointer, for example. Yes, you can write Object() and make tha
TS>>No, you don't have to go that far. For starters, one could allow function
TS>>(and possibly operator) overloading, based on type hints. The following is
TS>>legal PHP5:
That will already open the can of worms. And make each function call to go
through all the hoops of signature matching.
TS
+1.
Nothing to see here, move along.
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:01:37 -0800, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> This thread is cluttering the list.
> This won't be implemented, we discussed it in the past and already reached
> that decision, pretty much all of the PHP dev team agree
Guys,
This thread is cluttering the list.
This won't be implemented, we discussed it in the past and already reached
that decision, pretty much all of the PHP dev team agree so I suggest to
drop it and let's focus on stuff which will go into PHP...
Sorry to be so abrupt but this thread is getting
> From: "Stanislav Malyshev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> TS>>When you say "typeless", i think you mean "not statically typed".
>
> Not only, but in this case it is the main trait I meant.
...Because PHP has types, so I felt it was a misnomer to call it "typeless".
> TS>>through this discussion elsewhe
TS>>When you say "typeless", i think you mean "not statically typed". I've been
Not only, but in this case it is the main trait I meant.
TS>>through this discussion elsewhere - a variable will at any one time have a
TS>>well-defined type (or unset), which you may overload on, so the language is
JT>>> Why would it be ok there, but not in PHP? It also exists in other
JT>>scripting > languages, such as Python and Perl.
BTW, I don't remember anything useful done with operator overloading on
Perl. I must say I wrote a lot of Perl when nothing like Perl 6 existed,
so I may be somewhat behind
> TS>>If $a is an object of a class, then they would both be in the class
> TS>>definition. One is called "add", and the other is called "operator+".
What's
> TS>>the problem with that?
>
> The problem is that you can't really know what $a is - PHP is typeless.
When you say "typeless", i think you
TS>>If $a is an object of a class, then they would both be in the class
TS>>definition. One is called "add", and the other is called "operator+". What's
TS>>the problem with that?
The problem is that you can't really know what $a is - PHP is typeless.
You'll have to trace all the program up to $a
11 matches
Mail list logo
