Trey Harris wrote:
> Then I'd assume that multiple inheritance of both types would also
> conform?
Yes.
> So if $! is Errno, where class Errno is str is int
> that would work too?
I very much doubt you'll be able to inherit from the builtin types.
> (or is that Errno is str, int?),
M
Trey Harris asked:
> Another one...
>
> class Foo is Bar;
>
> method a {
> setup();
> }
>
> 1;
> # EOF
>
> (Is the 1 still required?
No.
> I think I heard Damian say it was going away.)
Yes.
> The question is, is this valid, if Bar defines a sub/static method
> 'setup'?
If C is a C,
Tim Bunce wrote:
>>Personally, I'm deprecating "regex" and its variants in my own writing and
>>speaking, and trying to stick to "rule" and "pattern".
>
>
> Using "pattern" in general and "rule" in the context of a grammar?
Using "pattern" for the contents and "rule" for the container.
But no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...] whose type is simultaneously C and C.
Has any thought yet gone into the builtin Perl types and what they will
be called in Perl 6? Will there be a difference between the C of
something and the type(s) that C returns?
In keeping with the lower case C and C exa
