You shouldn't be able to reopen/clobber an existing class/module unless
you specify
class Object is augmented {...}
class Object is replaced {...}
or some such (the trait names are still negotiable). In general,
private classes should start with "my" or "our", though I don't know
if Pugs
Hey,
Found out this morning that wizard.p6 suddenly stopped wondering and I was
stumped as to why. The autrijus came along and pointed out that i was
defineing an Object class of my own. This was obliterating the built in
class causing all other classes to fail to work at all. It would seem fro
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:22:59PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
> > I have included a sample framework for chapter 17. Theoretically,
> > someone could then go search the archives for decision points in any
> > of those headi
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:22:59PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> > Ok, are there any guidelines for what should and should not be put
> > forward as a patch.
> [...]
> For anything that doesn't come from @Larry or $Larry, I th
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> Ok, are there any guidelines for what should and should not be put
> forward as a patch. I can see 3 key areas of concern:
>
> 1. Framework for unwritten Synopses (so we know what goes where)
> 2. Heading placeholders for written
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:25:59PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: just checking: Are anonymous macros allowed?
I have no problem with macros being first-class objects during
the compile. Though the macro itself may have a problem with your
passing it '3' when it is likely expecting an AST. Bu
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:48:47AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > # Problem;
> > my $fh = BEGIN { open "some_file" err... };
> > # Compile-time filehandle leaked into runtime!
> > say =$fh;
>
> Perhaps I'm being very naive, but why is this a problem? Maybe it's not
> the best way to do somet
Hi,
chromatic wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 17:07 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
>> # No problem:
>> my $data = BEGIN {
>> my $fh = open "some_file" err...;
>> =$fh;
>> };
>>
>> # Problem;
>> my $fh = BEGIN { open "some_file" err... };
>> # Compile-time filehandle leaked int
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 17:07 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
> # No problem:
> my $data = BEGIN {
> my $fh = open "some_file" err...;
> =$fh;
> };
>
> # Problem;
> my $fh = BEGIN { open "some_file" err... };
> # Compile-time filehandle leaked into runtime!
> say =$fh;
Perhap
Hi,
just checking: Are anonymous macros allowed?
my $macro = macro ($x) { "100$x" };
say $macro(3); # 1003
Of course, anonymous macros can't be called at compile-time, like normal
macros:
my $macro = rand < 0.5
?? macro ($x) { "100$x" }
:: macro ($x) { "200$x" };
say $macro(3); #
Hi,
# No problem:
my $data = BEGIN {
my $fh = open "some_file" err...;
=$fh;
};
# Problem;
my $fh = BEGIN { open "some_file" err... };
# Compile-time filehandle leaked into runtime!
say =$fh;
In Perl 5, this wasn't a problem, as compilation and execution happended
(most of
On 6/13/05, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:24:07AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >Back when I wrote an
> > back-chaining system in perl, I used tied variables in order to
> > determine when I needed to solve for something.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:24:07AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I just have to say that it's really annoying running into
> optimizations when I don't want them.
Isn't the whole point of optimisations that you shouldn't have to worry
about whether you hit one or not, otherwise the optimisation wou
On 6/12/05, Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chip and I have been having a discussion. I want to write:
>
> sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
> say foo()("$x");
>
> I claim that that should print 1. Chip claims it should throw a warning about
> because of ti
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>>Chip and I have been having a discussion. I want to write:
>>
>>sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
>>say foo()("$x");
>>
>>I claim that that should print 1. Chip claims it should throw a warning about
>>be
Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Piers Cawley said:
>> in other words, some way of declaring that a subroutine wants to hang onto
>> every lexical it can see in its lexical stack, not matter what static
>> analysis
>> may say.
>
> I'm not arguing with the idea, in general. I just want to
16 matches
Mail list logo
