On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:43:28PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> One of mjd's points about mashed potatoes is that Perl isn't ML, and ML's
> typing approach doesn't fit on top of Perl very well (i.e. at all).
Well, my hope is somehow we can get types to be a bit more implicit
than the usual mess
Michael Schwern wrote:
> mjd tricked me into reading his "Strong Typing Doesn't Have To Suck"
> talk, and now I'm looking at the typing proposals for Perl 6 and
> thinking... boy, its going to be almost as bad as C. That sucks.
>
> Is there hope? I dunno, but read the talk.
> http://perl.plover.
mjd tricked me into reading his "Strong Typing Doesn't Have To Suck"
talk, and now I'm looking at the typing proposals for Perl 6 and
thinking... boy, its going to be almost as bad as C. That sucks.
Is there hope? I dunno, but read the talk.
http://perl.plover.com/yak/typing/
--
Michael G Sc
Chris Hostetter asked:
> Quandary #1: How "deep" of type specifications should / will perl6 allow?
> For example, could something like this work?
> my ARRAY(int(0..9)) $ref # $ref can only store an array ref
> # ...and that array can only hold ints
> > Me:
> [$foo is bar] can change the value of $foo.
>
> > Damian:
> Yes. For example:
> my $foo is persistent;
>
> Could you explain this further please?
The programmer has specified a property named 'persistent'.
The programmer has marked the
