From: Steffen Schwigon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe we should steal the ruby "principle of least surprise" here,
> > which I find a very good principle.
>
> I'm quite confident that Larry already stole all good principles he
> could find.
Me too
Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it looks like we can hide several multis with one sub:
> [ example ]
Maybe the type system in Pugs is not yet in such a final state to
experiment with it in all that details. I can construct other examples
or "reverse engineer" the neighbor discussion
Steffen Schwigon:
> Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Maybe I just phenomenally misunderstood multi subs, but unless I
>> did, I can't see why we want to have subs when we can have multi
>> subs that can do the same and even more.
>
> I understand your point and I confess I'm not sure.
>
> At
Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steffen Schwigon schrieb:
>> At least the many keywords seem to be necessary to map the complexity
>> of different paradigms possible in Perl6. Multimethods are not just
>> overloading as in C++. Second, the different keywords declare
>> different behavio
Steffen Schwigon schrieb:
> At least the many keywords seem to be necessary to map the complexity
> of different paradigms possible in Perl6. Multimethods are not just
> overloading as in C++. Second, the different keywords declare
> different behaviour you can choose. Just read S06, it's explained
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:55:28PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >An alternate interpretation would be that the last one is actually a
> >compile-
> >time error because none of the sigs match (Int,Int) and for a call to
> >work with 2 Int
Hi All,
I would like to thank everyone for their illuminating examples
and prose. This has cleared up understanding for me.
Thanks again,
Chris
On 6/23/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An alternate interpretation would
On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An alternate interpretation would be that the last one is actually a compile-
time error because none of the sigs match (Int,Int) and for a call to
work with 2 Int parameters, you'd need to be explicit:
talk(~123,3);
But I'm not sure wh
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:18:51PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> multi sub talk (String $msg1, String $msg2) { say "$msg1 $msg2" }
> multi sub talk (String $msg, Int $times) { say $msg x $times; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg, Num $times) { say "Please use an integer"; }
> multi sub talk (String $m
On 6/23/06, Steffen Schwigon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steffen Schwigon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> multi sub talk () { say 'Loose Talk Is Noose Talk.'; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg) { say $msg; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg, Int $times) { say $msg x $times; }
BTW, because we are j
> Multimethods are not just overloading as in C++.
To expand upon this point a little, you can use multimethods to do
pattern-matching in the style of ML and similar languages. So, to pinch
an example from the pugs tree (examples/functional/fp.p6)
multi sub length () returns Int { 0
Steffen Schwigon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> multi sub talk () { say 'Loose Talk Is Noose Talk.'; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg) { say $msg; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg, Int $times) { say $msg x $times; }
BTW, because we are just on-topic, can someone explain, when these
types above
"Chris Yocum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi All,
> At the risk of sounding a bit thick, I have a couple of questions
> about Perl6's multi keyword and mutilmethod in general. This seems
> like overloaded functions from C++ so why do we need a key word to
> declare them rather than using so
13 matches
Mail list logo
