Re: The invocation operators .* and .+

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 .+

* 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 .+

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 .+

* 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 .+

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 .+

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 .+

* 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

The invocation operators .* and .+

Hi. I know that Perl 6 has a lot of "live and let live" to it, but is it possible somehow to remove features as well? The latest comment about language design by Parrot Raiser (great name!) had me reflect on why I don't use perl any longer, and here is one of the reasons: class Person {