[snip]
> > PS: But before reinventing a wheel, i would like to suggest to
> > adopt the .NET/Java object hierarchy.
>
> uhm. either I am completely wrong or you are totally out
> of track. I really don't understand what you're talking about :-)
Urgs. Hopefully i didn't trapped into a dunghill ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aldo Calpini) writes:
> any (possibly meaningful) feedback will be very appreciated.
I think Type should be called Value, and that arrays should possibly be a
mixin of lists, but apart from that it looks fine. Oh, and you missed
out Grammars; and I don't know if macros are actua
Murat Ünalan wrote:
> A very good idea, but i am afraid that this ML isnt the right
> audience.
>
> PS: But before reinventing a wheel, i would like to suggest to
> adopt the .NET/Java object hierarchy.
uhm. either I am completely wrong or you are totally out
of track. I really don't understand w
[snip]
> effort on properties), so I started to put down a tentative
> class hierarchy of the Perl6 language (I call it P6FC for
> Perl6 Foundation Classes, but the name may (should? :-) very
> well change).
A very good idea, but i am afraid that this ML isnt the right
audience.
PS: But befor
