On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: We haven't solved the problem of instance methods that want to
: reject class invocants at compile time. Though I suppose explicitly
: declaring the type of the invocant would have that effect. I'm sure
: there are some who would argue (and I might be one
On 2002-10-14 at 19:58:50, Piers Cawley wrote:
> I would expect Class to inherit from Object (along with everything
> else). It might be worth looking at a Smalltalk image or two at this
> point...
You might want to look at _Putting_Metaclasses_To_Work_ by Danforth and
Forman - or at Ruby, which f
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 11:57 AM, Trey Harris wrote:
>> class SomeClass {
>> cmethod class_method {...} # via a keyword
>> method instance_method {...} # via another keyword
>> sub dont_care_method {...} # check it yourself, as
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If every Object happens to implement the Class interface, merely
>> declaring the invocant as a Class would presumably have this effect,
>> whether or not MD was in effect. I don't know whether that's a goo
In a message dated Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro writes:
> So if the first two should be shorter than the third, one way to do
> that would be something like:
>
> class SomeClass {
> cmethod class_method {...} # via a keyword
> method instance_method {
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 10:28 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> And I should point out that this approach would be good not just for
> type purity, but because it optimizes for the common case. Class
> methods
> are much rarer than instance methods. And
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: We haven't solved the problem of instance methods that want to
: reject class invocants at compile time. Though I suppose explicitly
: declaring the type of the invocant would have that effect. I'm sure
: there are some who would argue (and I might be one
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : My temporary hack while writing the proto-recipes was that we'd
> have a
> : property that would simply declare a method to be a class method,
> but
> : I'm having a hard time coming up with an acceptable
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: My temporary hack while writing the proto-recipes was that we'd have a
: property that would simply declare a method to be a class method, but
: I'm having a hard time coming up with an acceptable name to suggest for it:
:
: method foo is class_
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
: I was going to say the same thing, but then I remembered that Perl 6
: methods, unlike the sub 'methods' in Perl 5, won't get the invocant as the
: first real argument--it will be the topic instead. And I don't think you
: can do multiple-dispatch on topi
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
: I like that idea:
:
:class SomeClass {
: method class_method ( Class $class: ... ) { ... }
: method instance_method ( SomeClass $self : ... ) { ... }
: method dont_care_method ( $self : ... ) { ... }
:}
:
: Or
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
: I've looked before for discussion of the rationale behind
: introducing attr/has and failed to find it. I noticed you
: mention Zurich, so perhaps this decision followed from
: discussion in living color (as against b+w).
:
: Anyhow, what was deemed wrong with usi
> Nothing the matter with "our" for class attributes since they're
> already stored in the package if we follow Perl 5's lead. But using
> "my" for instance attributes is problematic if we allow a class to
> be reopened:
>
> class Blurfl {
> my $.foo;
> }
> ...
> class Blurfl is
I've looked before for discussion of the rationale behind
introducing attr/has and failed to find it. I noticed you
mention Zurich, so perhaps this decision followed from
discussion in living color (as against b+w).
Anyhow, what was deemed wrong with using my/our?
And...
> class Zap {
> my %.za
In a message dated Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley writes:
> I like that idea:
>
>class SomeClass {
> method class_method ( Class $class: ... ) { ... }
> method instance_method ( SomeClass $self : ... ) { ... }
> method dont_care_method ( $self : ... ) { ... }
Trey Harris wrote:
>
> In a message dated Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley writes:
> > I like that idea:
> >
> >class SomeClass {
> > method class_method ( Class $class: ... ) { ... }
> > method instance_method ( SomeClass $self : ... ) { ... }
> > method dont_care_metho
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
> : We also need a signifier for class methods (assuming
> : a distinction is made).
> :
> : Perhaps one could use an initial cap to indicate a class
> : attribute/method:
> :
> : class foo {
> : my $bar;# my i
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
: We also need a signifier for class methods (assuming
: a distinction is made).
:
: Perhaps one could use an initial cap to indicate a class
: attribute/method:
:
: class foo {
: my $bar;# my is not used for attributes
: our $baz;# neither i
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:40:04 -0700
: From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Draft Proposal: Declaring Classwide Attributes
:
: (Disclaimer: My purpose in proposing this is not to recommend it, but
(Disclaimer: My purpose in proposing this is not to recommend it, but
to document whether the idea should be endorsed, or shot down, and any
proposed canonical syntax. Note that the later implications of these
choices are quite substantial. Please discuss!)
[Draft Proposal: Declaring
20 matches
Mail list logo
