> Ooh. Multiple dispatch is definitely in then?
Not definite yet. That was a subjunctive "could". ;-)
But I'm very hopeful, since it's hard to user-implement things like
C unless you can give a subroutine several distinct signatures.
Damian
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers wrote:
>
>> one could always handle the first case
>> more explicitly by doing:
>>
>>sub load_data ($filename; $version) {
>> $version = 1 if @_.length < 2;
>> ...
>>}
>
> Err...no. If you specify named parameters, you don't g
Piers wrote:
> one could always handle the first case
> more explicitly by doing:
>
>sub load_data ($filename; $version) {
> $version = 1 if @_.length < 2;
> ...
>}
Err...no. If you specify named parameters, you don't get @_.
It could be handled by overloading though:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
> "Miko O'Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The current plans indicate that a subroutine's params should be defaulted
> > like this:
> >
> >sub load_data ($filename ; $version / /= 1) {...}
> >
> > (The space between / and / is on purpose, my e
> Ah, but I think the mnemonic value of the '.' more than earns its keep
> here. C is doing a slightly different job
> anyway. And instance variables are *not* the same as 'normal'
> variables, they hang off a different symbol table (or syte, to use
> Damian's oh so clever term from Perl 5+i) and
"Miko O'Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current plans indicate that a subroutine's params should be defaulted
> like this:
>
>sub load_data ($filename ; $version / /= 1) {...}
>
> (The space between / and / is on purpose, my emailer has problems if
> they are together.) If that's
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > $.foo
>>
>> It's already defined as an instance variable.
>
> I don't think I like that. Instance variables are far more common that
> class variables, so why not just $foo, and you could use a compile-time
> property for class variables. Lik
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Reflecting on this, it seems that it would be useful if methods
> implicitly did their default topicalization-of-invocant like so:
>
> -> $self
>
> rather than just:
>
> -> $_
>
> That is, that as well as aliasing the invocant to $_,
At 04:01 PM 4/10/2002 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > $.foo
> >
> > It's already defined as an instance variable.
>
>I don't think I like that. Instance variables are far more common that
>class variables, so why not just $foo, and you could use a compile-time
>property for class variables. L
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 12:01:58PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Allison Randal wrote:
>
> > H... this being the case, is there any reason we should ever need to
> > name the invocant explicitly?
>
> Yes. To make it read-writable.
Curses! Foiled again! :)
> Perl makes that much easier th
Allison Randal wrote:
> H... this being the case, is there any reason we should ever need to
> name the invocant explicitly?
Yes. To make it read-writable.
Perl makes that much easier than most other languages, because you can pass
the invocant by (writable) reference, so you don't need to
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 08:04:56AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> Reflecting on this, it seems that it would be useful if methods
> implicitly did their default topicalization-of-invocant like so:
>
> -> $self
>
> rather than just:
>
> -> $_
>
> That is, that as well as aliasing
The current plans indicate that a subroutine's params should be defaulted
like this:
sub load_data ($filename ; $version / /= 1) {...}
(The space between / and / is on purpose, my emailer has problems if they
are together.) If that's the technique, how does the caller indicate that
the secon
Melvin Smith wrote
> I think that would be just plain bad design, but I'd be happy
> if someone showed me a use for it. :)
well, I've been known to do
sub UNIVERSAL::debug
{
my $self = shift;
my $msg = "@_";
eval {$self=$self->name} if ref($self);
my $timestamp = ...;
my
At 08:04 AM 4/11/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>And welcome back to where we started! ;-)
Wow there is a lot of blood on the ground here. Must have been messy... :)
>Of course, the problem is then: what should the name of this topicalizer
>variable be? The main options are:
>
> $self
At 07:54 PM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >> > method m1
> >> > {
> >> >m2; # calls method m2 in the same
At 07:40 PM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 10:50 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >>"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >> > > method m1
> >> > > {
> >> > >m2
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 08:04:56AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Allison wrote:
> >
> >$self.foo() => $self->foo() # and can be .foo() when $self is $_
> >.foo() => $_->foo() # but might be altered by a pragma
> >foo() => foo()
>
>
> And welcome back to where we started! ;-)
Exact
Allison wrote:
>
> > > "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Thus, the perl5 transalations would be:
> > > >
> > > > foo() => $self->foo()
> > > > .foo() => $_->foo()
> > > > &foo() => foo()
> > > > ...
>
> Alternative:
>
>$self.foo() => $self->foo() # and can be .
> > $.foo
>
> It's already defined as an instance variable.
I don't think I like that. Instance variables are far more common that
class variables, so why not just $foo, and you could use a compile-time
property for class variables. Like C as discussed. That or
C. I think the latter mak
> > "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Thus, the perl5 transalations would be:
> > >
> > > foo() => $self->foo()
> > > .foo() => $_->foo()
> > > &foo() => foo()
> > > ...
Alternative:
$self.foo() => $self->foo() # and can be .foo() when $self is $_
.foo() => $_->f
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:23:23PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thus, the perl5 transalations would be:
> >
> > foo() => $self->foo()
> > .foo() => $_->foo()
> > &foo() => foo()
> > ...
>
> For reasons that I can't quite put my finger on at
great idea :")
I've just tried gnuCash program and think it is very cool (i've enjoyed to take
first steps in double-entry accounting, i was always wondering what the hell is this
:") )...
http://www.ncsysadmin.org/july2001/ncsa-gnucash-talk.html#toc1
(very entertaining intro :") )
Meanw
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:42:58PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
> > > I like the following, assumed to be within method m1:
> > >
> > > ..m2(); # call m2 the same way m1 was called, instance or class
> >
> > This has already be
> The following syntaxes have been seen:
>
> foo()
> .foo()
> ..foo() ## rejected because ".." is different binary op
> class.foo()
> FooClass.foo()
> ::foo()
> Package::foo()
> $foo()
> $_.foo()
With a nod to Piers, and with apologes if this is silly in
the context of Perl 6 syntax, wh
"David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley
>> > This may be a case of keep up at the back, but if that is a
>> method call,
>> > how do I call a subroutine from within a method ?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Yes, I know there's several different ways I could do it, but this
>> approach fee
Piers Cawley
> > This may be a case of keep up at the back, but if that is a
> method call,
> > how do I call a subroutine from within a method ?
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, I know there's several different ways I could do it, but this
> approach feels right.
I think this comes does to huffmann encodi
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > ::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
>> > main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
>>
>> This is looking more and more horrible Glenn.
> I think we need to back off of unmarked
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:42:58PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
> > I like the following, assumed to be within method m1:
> >
> > ..m2();# call m2 the same way m1 was called, instance or class
>
> This has already been semi-rejected. I agree with the reasoning. Not
> that it wouldn't be
Ashley Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Patches welcome.
>
> Excellent...
>
> Forgive any formatting errors, I have mail issues.
Thanks, applying. With a few caveats.
> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
> class SchemePair is SchemeExpr {
>my $nil //= class is SchemeExpr {
> method is_nil {1}
>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > > ::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
> > > main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
> >
> > This is looking more and more horrible Glenn.
> I think we need t
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:12:56PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > > ..class.m2: # call static m2 within m1's class, regardless
> > of how m1 was called
> > Typo. That should be just .class.m2, only one leading
Mark J. Reed wrote
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > ..class.m2: # call static m2 within m1's class, regardless
> of how m1 was called
> Typo. That should be just .class.m2, only one leading '.'.
Wouldn't that be the current topic's class?
Dave.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> ..class.m2: # call static m2 within m1's class, regardless of how m1 was called
Typo. That should be just .class.m2, only one leading '.'.
--
Mark J. REED<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Allison Randal wrote:
> >
> > Direction 2 moves into the more exciting but scarier realm of alternate
> > defaults.
>
> It could, but how about an alternative?
Ah-ha, yet a third Direction!
> Need there be a unary dot to speci
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > ::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
> > main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
>
> This is looking more and more horrible Glenn.
I think we need to back off of unmarked subroutines becoming a method
call. That one extr
Glenn Linderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Graham Barr wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>> > > method m1
>> > > {
>> > >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
>> > Yes, but do
Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>> > method m1
>> > {
>> >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
>> Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on t
Graham Barr wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > > method m1
> > > {
> > >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> > Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current inv
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > method m1
> > {
> >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
> or as a class method with
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 10:50 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>>"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>> > > method m1
>> > > {
>> > >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
>> > Yes, but does it call
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 09:23 AM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>>Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
>>stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
>
> Very nice! Quite a sample, maybe Larry/Damian can use this
>
At 10:50 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > > method m1
> > > {
> > >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> > Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
>
David Whipp wrote:
>
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > > method m1
> > > {
> > >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> > Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
> > or as a class method with no inv
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
> > or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
> > do the latter?
>
> Should both be allowed to exist? Do both exist? Why do both
"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > method m1
> > {
> >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
> or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how woul
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > method m1
> > {
> >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
> or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> method m1
> {
>m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
do the latter?
>.m2; # sy
Allison Randal wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:56:02PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > We're talking about how to make .foo mean self.foo regardless of the
> > > current topic.
> >
> > Are we? I was looking for a way to unambgiously access the
At 09:23 AM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
>stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
Very nice! Quite a sample, maybe Larry/Damian can use this
in one of the next $(A,E)'s
> my SchemeExpr $.v
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:56:02PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We're talking about how to make .foo mean self.foo regardless of the
> > current topic.
>
> Are we? I was looking for a way to unambgiously access the current
> object in such a way that
At 3:49 PM +0100 4/10/02, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your idea at the end of regugitating the code back out as Parrot or Perl
>> is just slightly stunning on its own.
>
>I thought that was the easy bit. The compiler just (for appropriate
>values of 'just'
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 10:03, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wrote:
>> > [ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ]
>>
>> I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you
>> all into silence?
>
> On my clock, you
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 10:03, Piers Cawley wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wrote:
> > [ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ]
>
> I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all
> into silence?
On my clock, your original message arrived at 04:23, and your followu
At 3:03 PM +0100 4/10/02, Piers Cawley wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wrote:
>> [ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ]
>
>I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all
>into silence?
Nah. You just can't hear the people running away screaming from there. ;-P
-
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wrote:
> [ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ]
I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all
into silence?
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a re
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 04:03:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> My understanding was that perl6 would default to Perl 6 (*not* Perl 5), unless
> the first thing it encountered was a:
>
> package Whatever;
>
> statement.
If so, that's a change, at least from what I gleaned by following th
Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
and I'm toying with waiting for A5 before I do. Also, I've not yet
implemented such important stuff as proper closures/lambda or the
environment chain, but the un
58 matches
Mail list logo
