At 2:47 PM -0800 12/17/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:48:56AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Simon Cozens wrote:
>> Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
>
>Agreed, but I don't think this is necessarily a Bad Thing.
Disagreed--we're getting stead
At 9:54 AM -0800 12/17/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Umm... I think some of these recent messages have had typos between
L2R and R2L. (?) In that people seem to have been arguing against
themselves. (??) I'll try using --> and <--.
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 05:45 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
Umm... I think some of these recent messages have had typos between L2R
and R2L. (?) In that people seem to have been arguing against
themselves. (??) I'll try using --> and <--.
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 05:45 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you think L2
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 01:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are questions about the general design of Perl 6's OO system and
out of the scope of ths discussion. The Perl 6 OO Cookbook does a
good job of documenting what OO will look like in Perl 6 this week:
http://cog.cognitiv
At 11:38 AM + 12/17/02, Andy Wardley wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
Agreed, but I don't think this is necessarily a Bad Thing.
Disagreed--we're getting steadily closer to inventing Smalltalk. :)
Which isn't altogether a bad thing.
At 5:45 PM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:44:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:12 AM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
>You find R2L easier to read, I find L2R
>easier. TIMTOWDI. Perl6 should be smart enough to support both.
Why?
Yes, technically we
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 03:12:09AM -0600, Josh Jore wrote:
> > This is just your friendly neighborhood curmudgeon reminding you that in
> > Perl 6, everything is an object. This is a concept that, as Perl
> > programmers, we're not familiar with.
>
> Are these objects class based or where do the
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
Agreed, but I don't think this is necessarily a Bad Thing.
Larry said ~~ "People have been borrowing ideas from Perl for a long time,
now it's time to borrow some back".
I like Ruby, I like dot ops, and I like bein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Jore) writes:
> Are these objects class based or where do the methods come from? Is there
> an accomodation for something like classless objects?
Piers earlier suggested having anonymous classes available (Class.new,
etc.), which seems like a good idea, meaning you could in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Storrs) writes:
> Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you think L2R is a bad idea,
> and should not be supported? Or just that it has not yet been
> demonstrated that this is a good idea?
I think supporting two distinct syntaces, one being a mirror image of
the other, i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Storrs) writes:
> ...and map, grep, etc, would be elements of Collection, overriden in
> sensible ways by the derived classes?
Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
--
void russian_roulette(void) { char *target; strcpy(target, "bullet"); }
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> This is just your friendly neighborhood curmudgeon reminding you that in
> Perl 6, everything is an object. This is a concept that, as Perl
> programmers, we're not familiar with.
Are these objects class based or where do the methods come from? Is
12 matches
Mail list logo
