This is perfectly possible in Perl5, so I don't see why it wouldn't be
possible in Perl6...
Create a new package.
Add the sub to that package.
Set the @INC of that package to your current package.
Re-bless yourself into the new package.
Granted a nice simple syntax would be nice, but that's what
It seems something messed up while I tried to send this earlier. If this
is essentially a duplicate, ignore it.
I've always liked how VB allowed you to do "instance methods." They allow
for more elegant callbacks, and more structure if callbacks are
complicated. Will Perl6 allow this? (Perl5 s
Miko O'Sullivan writes:
: From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > It's unlikely that {n,m} will still have that meaning in Perl 6. Maybe
: we'll
: > have something like this:
: >
: > Perl 5 Perl 6
: > {1,3} <1..3>
: > {3} <3>
: > {3,} <3+>
: > {0,3} <3->
:
: What are your
From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's unlikely that {n,m} will still have that meaning in Perl 6. Maybe
we'll
> have something like this:
>
> Perl 5 Perl 6
> {1,3} <1..3>
> {3} <3>
> {3,} <3+>
> {0,3} <3->
What are your feelings on multiple ranges for matches? E.g. t
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 10:17 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 13:58, Chris Dutton wrote:
>
>> method world is public_to(Bar) {
>
> Might as well make that:
>
> method world is private(Bar)
>
> I tend to take any opportunity to recycle syntax, plus keywords with
On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 10:36, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:04 AM -0400 5/15/02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> >On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 21:42, Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> >> > Wouldn't those be the same?
> >>
> >> Not quite. C<$.bar> is a direct access to the attribute. C<.bar> is a call
> >> to the accesso
Aaron Sherman writes:
: Should a tied and/or lazy array be forced to present a length on demand,
: or can length return undef on indeterminate arrays?
An array implementation can return anything it jolly well pleases, but
I'd say undef would be a reasonable thing to return if the length is
indete
Aaron Sherman writes:
: Hopefully there will be some replacement. I can't count the number of
: times I've relied on things like:
:
: $b = qr/\d{1,3}/;
: if (@ip = ($addr =~ /($b)\.($b)\.($b)\.($b)/)) {
: die "$0: \"$addr\": bad IP\n" if grep {$_>255} @ip;
: print("0x",(map {s
At 10:04 AM -0400 5/15/02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 21:42, Damian Conway wrote:
>
>> > Wouldn't those be the same?
>>
>> Not quite. C<$.bar> is a direct access to the attribute. C<.bar> is a call
>> to the accessor. There might well be performance issues.
>
>I would expect th
At 10:10 AM -0400 5/15/02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 00:39, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 8:58 PM -0700 5/10/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >I was wondering how perl6 would stringify (as in Data::Dumper):
>>
>> That's not stringification. It's serialization, which is a different
On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 20:13, Larry Wall wrote:
> It's unlikely that {n,m} will still have that meaning in Perl 6. Maybe we'll
> have something like this:
>
> Perl 5Perl 6
> {1,3} <1..3>
> {3} <3>
> {3,} <3+>
> {0,3} <3->
>
> Then again, maybe
On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 13:58, Chris Dutton wrote:
> method world is public_to(Bar) {
Might as well make that:
method world is private(Bar)
I tend to take any opportunity to recycle syntax, plus keywords with
underscores give me gas. ;)
On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 00:39, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 8:58 PM -0700 5/10/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I was wondering how perl6 would stringify (as in Data::Dumper):
>
> That's not stringification. It's serialization, which is a different
> thing entirely.
>
> What you'll potentially get is
On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 21:42, Damian Conway wrote:
> > Wouldn't those be the same?
>
> Not quite. C<$.bar> is a direct access to the attribute. C<.bar> is a call
> to the accessor. There might well be performance issues.
I would expect that there won't be, but perhaps I'm optimistically
over-hyp
On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 17:43, Damian Conway wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > I've always found the word "like" to be very wishy-washy in a computer
> > langauge. In what way is newbaz like baz? And just how alike are they?
> > There must be a better way to describe this.
>
> Perhaps:
>
>
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 15:43, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> From: "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It it too much to ask, of the creator of a tied array, to implement
> > their code in such a way that *reading* an element of that array
> > does not have significant side-effects?
>
> Actually, I th
16 matches
Mail list logo
