Jonathan Lang writes:
> I've just been rereading the recent discussions, and I noticed something
> that I missed the first time:
>
> Larry Wall wrote:
> > Traits are not definitional but rather operationally defined in the
> > worst way. That's why traits are renegade roles. They don't play by
I've just been rereading the recent discussions, and I noticed something
that I missed the first time:
Larry Wall wrote:
> Traits are not definitional but rather operationally defined in the
> worst way. That's why traits are renegade roles. They don't play by
> the rules.
In other words, a
Larry Wall wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> : Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : : Why not do it the same way that namespace scoping collisions are
> : : resolved: the local scope trumps the caller's scope. Rinse, lather,
> : : repeat.
>
> Actually, I didn't see that you said "caller's scope". That would im
"A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-16 11:57]:
>> bear in mind that the authors of the paper use the term
>> 'trait' for what we're calling a 'role' (We already have
>> traits you see).
>>
>> http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~bla
PerlDiscuss - Perl Newsgroups and mailing lists wrote:
When the official release of Perl 6 is released and I start to write some
Perl 6 programs using Perl 5 modules, will I get any errors? How will this
be handled? Will all of the Perl 5 modules have to be ported over and
converted to Perl 6 code?
When the official release of Perl 6 is released and I start to write some
Perl 6 programs using Perl 5 modules, will I get any errors? How will this
be handled? Will all of the Perl 5 modules have to be ported over and
converted to Perl 6 code? Can I have a basic perl6.pl file while using the
stand
