On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:25:17PM +0200, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:43:42PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
: > The syntax might just be:
: >
: >&is_equal:(Integer $a, Integer where { $_ == $a } :)
: >
:
: It's a new type object every time, so every time you ru
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Link link.
http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/projects/cecil/www/Papers/gud.html
In case it matters, we're trying to support the Perl 6 semantics of
both ($a:$b:) and ($a,$b:). The former looks like something that
could be implemented with something called "predicat
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:43:42PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
> Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> >This:
> >multi sub is_equal(Integer $a, Integer where { $_ == $a } $b: ) { 1 }
> >hurts. At least as I've been given to understand it[*], is impossible
> >to implement, because the second parame
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
This:
multi sub is_equal(Integer $a, Integer where { $_ == $a } $b: ) { 1 }
hurts. At least as I've been given to understand it[*], is impossible
to implement, because the second parameter's type can't be precalculated
in order to prepare for MMD dispatching.
Quite
This:
multi sub is_equal(Integer $a, Integer where { $_ == $a } $b: ) { 1 }
hurts. At least as I've been given to understand it[*], is impossible
to implement, because the second parameter's type can't be precalculated
in order to prepare for MMD dispatching.
The type object describing $b c
