On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 17:36:04 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Sure, when it slows down your compiler so much that it's useless for
> running code that doesn't have the error, especially if it's a rare
> error that is likely to be caught some other way anyway. Where to
> balance this should be the de
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 08:29:07PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: Is there any situation where a compile time error is not a good
: thing to have?
Sure, when it slows down your compiler so much that it's useless for
running code that doesn't have the error, especially if it's a rare
error that is li
On 9/25/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In order to enforce that level of compile-time type safely, you should
> > need to declare my Dog $dog, or stick a pragma up top:
>
> That's the point of my question - why? What do I lose by
> inferrencing?
Nothing that I see. I recant my arg
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 11:24:05 -0700, Ashley Winters wrote:
> I can't accept that. While you can infer that $dog will be a Dog at
> that line of code, it isn't being enforced, which means no
> compile-time error. $dog is allowed to store any kind of data, and you
> only know what methods exist in
On 9/25/05, Ashley Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/25/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Under strict type inferrencing, i'd expect this to be a compile time
> > error:
I quoted but didn't read close enough. You DID say strict type
inferencing. Never mind. :)
Ashley Winters
On 9/25/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... Making up these subjects is fun =)
Very interesting. :)
> Under strict type inferrencing, i'd expect this to be a compile time
> error:
>
> my $dog = Dog.new;
>
> if ($condition) {
> my Cat $c = $dog;
>
