On 4/22/04 6:52 PM, John Siracusa wrote:
> Yes, it appears that runtime checks for the existence of required params
> will continue to be a necessary part of Perl programming.
...of course, there are at least two ways to do "runtime checks":
* runtime checks that the programmer has to write h
On 4/22/04 5:33 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 10:51, John Siracusa wrote:
>> Hm, so how would the "is required" trait that Damian posted work? Would it
>> simply be shorthand for a run-time check that I don't have to write myself?
>> I was under the impression that it would work
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 10:51, John Siracusa wrote:
> Hm, so how would the "is required" trait that Damian posted work? Would it
> simply be shorthand for a run-time check that I don't have to write myself?
> I was under the impression that it would work the way I described earlier:
>
> sub fo
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 12:18, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> : For that they leave it to lambda.weblogs.com to heap *educated* scorn
> : and derision on things. :)
>
> Hmm, well, in all their educatedness, they don't seem to have figured
> out t
This is actually a couple of questions:
1: can you extend roles by saying: role Set is extended {}
2: if yes, does this change variables for which you said $var does Set?
In other words, is the singleton class like a closure or a first-class
class?
What follows is just some example code in case
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 01:51, Larry Wall wrote:
> Note these just warp the defaults. Underneath is still a strongly
> typed string system. So you can say "use bytes" and know that the
> strings that *you* create are byte strings. However, if you get in a
> string from another module, you can't n
