On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 00:43, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Maybe as an alternative to
>
>role Stringify {must stringify();}
>sub print_it (Stringify $thingie) {print $thingie.stringify();}
>
> you might be able to say
>
>sub print_it ($thingie must stringify()) {print $thingie.stringify()
Austin Hastings wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > Maybe as an alternative to
> >
> >role Stringify {must stringify();}
> >sub print_it (Stringify $thingie) {print $thingie.stringify();}
> >
> > you might be able to say
> >
> >sub print_it ($thingie must stringify()) {
> > print $t
Austin Hastings wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > OK: when you call $spot.bark, Trog looks for a "bark" method; it finds
> > two: Tree::bark and Dog::bark. Since both methods have been supplied
> > by roles, $spot has no idea which one to use, and throws an exception
> > to that effect.
>
> I
Sayeth the Summarizer:
Asked for pithy comments, chromatic gave good pith, noting that if he
'had a test case from everyone who asked "When'll it be done" and code
to pass a test case from everyone who said "I'd like to help, but I
don't know where to start"...' then he'd happily ch
From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> > > Why does it have to be a String, though? What prevents it from
> > > working with anything that can stringify, besides the overly
> > > restrictive signature? What if you could say (the Perl 6 equivalent
> > > of):
> > >
From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > > Austin Hastings wrote:
> > > > There's two ways to look at that. One way is to say: "I'm going to
> > > > define an interface as being this OTHER thing minus a method." That
> > > > seems like a po
From: chromatic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 22:26, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > So on the grand balance of utility, what are the metrics that traits are
> > supposed to help improve?
>
> Two big ones:
>
> - naming collections of behavior that are too fine-grained
> to fi
Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Why does it have to be a String, though? What prevents it from
> > working with anything that can stringify, besides the overly
> > restrictive signature? What if you could say (the Perl 6 equivalent
> > of):
> >
> > sub print_it ( does Stringify $thingie )
> >
chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 22:26, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>> So on the grand balance of utility, what are the metrics that traits are
>> supposed to help improve?
>
> Two big ones:
>
> - naming collections of behavior that are too fine-grained to fit into
"Joe Gottman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Luke Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:51 AM
> Subject: [perl] Re: Roles and Mix-ins?
>
>
>> David Storrs writes:
>> >
>> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 11:12:31AM -
Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>> Renaming methods defeats the purpose of roles. Roles are like
>> interfaces inside-out. They guarantee a set of methods -- an interface
>> -- except they provide the implementation to (in terms of other,
>> required methods). Ren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Scott) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
>
>>PS: While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that eu guys are trying to
>>spin up 200 years worth of amendments and supreme court decisions at the
>>same time, it's still
Austin Hastings wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > Austin Hastings wrote:
> > > There's two ways to look at that. One way is to say: "I'm going to
> > > define an interface as being this OTHER thing minus a method." That
> > > seems like a positive construction, and supporting it might be
> > > desi
13 matches
Mail list logo
