On Thu, 07 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mused:
> >My original suggestion was that scalar types provide a method that says
> >how 'big' it is (so complex > bigreal > real > int etc),
> >and pp_add(), pp_sub() etc use these values to call the method associated
> >with the biggest oper
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:20:44PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> If we assume that ints and nums are perl builtins, and that some people
> have implemented the following external types: byte (eg as implemented
> as a specialised array type), bigreal, complex, bigcomplex, bigrat,
> quaternian; the
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:20:44PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > If we assume that ints and nums are perl builtins, and that some people
> > have implemented the following external types: byte (eg as implemented
> > as a specialised array type), bigre
David Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>I think this this boils down to 2 important questions, and I'd be interested in
>hearing people's opinions of them.
>
>1. Does the Perl 6 language require some explicit syntax and/or semnatics to
>handle multiple and user-defined numeric types?
>Eg "my
In "Listing of possible context combinations:"
there is
(SCALAR, 1, LVALUE)func() = $x;
shouldn't there also be
(LIST, ~0, LVALUE) func() = @x;
I can't find any discussion of this part in the archives, so I hope
I'm no
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:05:30PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:20:44PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > > If we assume that ints and nums are perl builtins, and that some people
> > > have implemented the following externa
