At 09:18 PM 8/24/2001 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>I meant that, if we
>know $spot is supposed to have a Dog in it, can we avoid checking if it
>really does (at least some of the time) and maybe shuck some overhead by
>doing so? Perhaps we only check after each assignment to $spot, and
>when we check
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:20:26PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> I was thinking about Perl 6 today, and thought of something: if the
> sigil is now part of a variable's name, does that mean that $Foo::bar
> should actually be Foo::$bar in Perl 6?
Techincally 'bar' is shorthand for the complete name,
"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> # From: Uri Guttman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> # BD> equivalent) in method lookups? In other words, if
> # $spot is declared to
> # BD> hold a Dog, can we assume that it does, thus skipping
> # the check with
> # BD> 'ref' normally used for method
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DC> One might also envisage a C pragma to require
> DC> that all lexicals be typed.
>
> do you mean lexical params in a sub signature? or all lexicals in the
> current scope which contains
I was thinking about Perl 6 today, and thought of something: if the
sigil is now part of a variable's name, does that mean that $Foo::bar
should actually be Foo::$bar in Perl 6?
--Brent Dax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
# -Original Message-
# From: Uri Guttman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 8:56 PM
# To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Subject: Re: Will subroutine signatures apply to methods in Perl6
#
#
# > "BD" == Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
#
# -Original Message-
# From: Uri Guttman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 4:09 PM
# To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Subject: Re: Will subroutine signatures apply to methods in Perl6
#
#
# > "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
#
#
Uri writes:
> DC> One might also envisage a C pragma to require
> DC> that all lexicals be typed.
>
> do you mean lexical params in a sub signature? or all lexicals in the
> current scope which contains the pragma?
any(@above).
Some people will want one; some, the other. We
