On Tuesday 09 September 2008 09:51:37 Allison Randal wrote:
> jerry gay wrote:
> > can they be replaced by roles?
> Potentially, yes. In the case of the scalar PMC it would make quite a
> bit of sense as a role (composing in behavior common to scalar data
> types). For the default PMC it makes l
jerry gay wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a) Do abstract base classes as currently implemented in Parrot serve any
useful purpose? If not, eliminate them.
can they be replaced by roles?
Potentially, yes. In the case of the scalar PMC it would
On Monday 08 September 2008 07:36:51 jerry gay wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a) Do abstract base classes as currently implemented in Parrot serve any
> > useful purpose? If not, eliminate them.
>
> can they be replaced by roles?
Exactly my
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) Do abstract base classes as currently implemented in Parrot serve any
> useful purpose? If not, eliminate them.
>
can they be replaced by roles?
~jerry
chromatic wrote:
The scalar PMC is abstract, but it contains multis that need registration with
the MMD system at initialization time. PMCs containing multis register those
multis in their Parrot__class_init() functions.
At least, non-abstract PMCs do.
I ran into a similar problem with my vt
