On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 01:50 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
> Parens don't construct lists EVER! They only group elements
> syntactically. One common use of parens is to surround a
> comma-separated list, but the *commas* are creating the list, *not* the
> parens!
>
Following this rule would m
On Monday, September 30, 2002, at 08:23 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> OTOH, Java interfaces have a loophole which is considered a design
> mistake.
> An interface can declare some parts of the interface optional and then
> implementors can decide if they want to implement it or not. The
> u
Noah White:
# I think needless obfuscation is treating $a = (10); as a
# scalar instead
# of a list reference containing one item when the rest of the the $a =
# () are list references.
I think needless obfuscation is treating $a = (10) differently than $a =
10. The latter is the behavior we'
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> [ Stuff about how commas construct lists, not parens ]
>
Wow, somehow you've convinced me that all the problems I saw before aren't
really there. Well, switch on the light, there's no monsters under the
bed afterall.
> : This has the added benefit that there is a significa
On Saturday, October 5, 2002, at 09:33 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
>
>
> : Additionally, parentheses have one inconsistency which brackets do
> not:
> : This is the following case, already shown on perl6-language:
> :
> : $a = ();# $a is a list reference with 0 elements
> : $a = (10);
>
>> Note that an alternate definition of "private" is often used, as
>> follows:
>>
>> A "private" attribute is an attribute whose scope is restricted such
>> that
>> it may be accessed only within the class in which it has been
>> declared,
>> OR WITHIN ANY CLASS THAT INHERITS
On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 07:39 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
[SNIP]
> Definition: "private":
>
> A "private" attribute is an attribute whose scope is restricted such
> that
> it may be accessed only within the class in which it has been
> declared.
> It is not available
According to Larry Wall:
> I suppose we could make comma merely puke in scalar context rather
> than DWIM, at least optionally.
I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
> : $a = ();# $a is a list reference with 0 elements
> : $a = (10); # $a is the scalar 10
> : $a
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
: =head1 TITLE
:
: Square brackets are the only list constructor
:
: =head1 VERSION
:
: Maintainer: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Date: 24 Sep 2002
: Number: 362 (?)
: Version: 1
:
: =head1 ABSTRACT
:
: This RFC responds to the fury on perl6
John Williams:
# Personally, I hope they look like attributes. But if they
# do, the perl5
# lvalue subs are not the way to do it. Why? Because an
# lvalue sub returns
# a lvalue which get set _after_ the sub returns. At that
# point it is too
# late for the sub to do anything useful wit
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:50:11PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
>
> Ah, but the usual case is this:
>
> You download from CPAN class A that depends on version 1.0 of class N.
> You then download class B that also depends on version 1.0 of class N.
> You create an application that uses both classes
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > There won't be any direct access to attributes outside class methods
> > of the class that defines the attributes, unless Larry changes his
> > mind in a big way. (And, honestly, probably not even then) Instead
> > it'll al
At 12:53 PM -0700 10/5/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>> There won't be any direct access to attributes outside class methods
>> of the class that defines the attributes, unless Larry changes his
>> mind in a big way. (And, honestly, probably not even then) Instead
>> it'll
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> There won't be any direct access to attributes outside class methods
> of the class that defines the attributes, unless Larry changes his
> mind in a big way. (And, honestly, probably not even then) Instead
> it'll all be accessed via lvalue methods. If an attribute is exp
In a message dated Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Allison Randal writes:
> More useful: keep a site-wide or company-wide file of version aliases to
> make sure everyone uses the same version, and to make upgrades to the
> next version as simple as editing a single file.
Ah, but the usual case is this:
You dow
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:03:44AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Thu, 3 Oct 2002, John Williams writes:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
> >
> > > Incidentally, has there been any headway made on how you DO access
> > > multiple classes with the same name, since Larry
On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 06:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:13:45AM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
>>> How exactly does one "weaken" a precondition?
>>
>> At least in Eiffel, if you redefine a method, you may not give it
>> stringer preconditions than the original
At 10:58 AM +0200 10/5/02, Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:42:27PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> > - An attribute and a method are _not_ typically implemented in the same
>> manner. Treating the two as interchangeable might imply runtime
>> overhead.
>
>Bah! I bet the intern
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:42:27PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> [Draft Proposal: Symmetry between Attributes and Accessors]
>
> It is proposed that class attributes may be treated as functionally
> equivalent to an identically named accessor method. In this manner, it
> shall become irrele
19 matches
Mail list logo
