Re: The invocation operators .* and .+

2015-06-17 Thread yary
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * yary [2015-06-17 17:10]: >> Perl6's "TEARDOWN" > > Sorry for the confusion. It’s not in Perl 6. I invented .teardown for > this example because I didn’t want to call it .destroy – that’s all. That's good to know. I did find DESTROY

Re: The invocation operators .* and .+

2015-06-17 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* yary [2015-06-17 17:10]: > Perl6's "TEARDOWN" Sorry for the confusion. It’s not in Perl 6. I invented .teardown for this example because I didn’t want to call it .destroy – that’s all. -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: The invocation operators .* and .+

2015-06-17 Thread yary
A couple years ago I wrote a little Perl6 in response to a challenge, and it took me a while to figure out BUILD, BUILDALL, and new(). Learning the object model meant reading what was available on the web plus some time on the #perl6 IRC channel. I managed to get it all working properly for my litt

Re: The invocation operators .* and .+

2015-06-16 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 13:10]: > On 06/16/15 12:24, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: >> * Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 11:35]: >>> This is working exactly as specified in the synopsis, but does Perl >>> 6 NEED anything like this? Just because something is possible >>> doesn't make it an automatic

Re: The invocation operators .* and .+

2015-06-16 Thread Michael Zedeler
Hi Aristotle. On 06/16/15 12:24, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: * Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 11:35]: This is working exactly as specified in the synopsis, but does Perl 6 NEED anything like this? Just because something is possible doesn't make it an automatic requirement! Well someone thought th

Re: The invocation operators .* and .+

2015-06-16 Thread Smylers
Aristotle Pagaltzis writes: > Just because you can’t think of the use of a feature doesn’t mean > there isn’t one. No, though it possibly means the docs could do with a clearer example which demonstrates its use in a situation where it makes sense to use it. Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smyler

Re: The invocation operators .* and .+

2015-06-16 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 11:35]: > This is working exactly as specified in the synopsis, but does Perl > 6 NEED anything like this? Just because something is possible doesn't > make it an automatic requirement! Well someone thought they needed it in Perl 5 so they wrote NEXT which provides E