Larry wrote:
: If the Bare code object (including pointy and non-pointy) default their
: parameter types to "Any" (that is, Item|Pair|Junction), then all of
: these would work:
:
: for [1..10].pairs { say(.value) }
: for [1..10].pairs { say($^x.value) }
: for [1..10].pairs -> $x {
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 12:25:02PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 03:48:55PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: > Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > > This currently works in Pugs:
: > >
: > > for [1..10].pairs -> Pair $x { say $x.value }
: > >
: > > But t
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 03:25:17PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> : Damian may not like the colon, but I couldn't help thinking that the "_"
> : could be replaced with ":" and things would be cleaner. Example:
>
> Well, but the _ really is part of the name,
John Williams schrieb:
The proposals so far have dealt mostly with the SQL itself, and
supporting database-neutral layers on top of DBI.
Personally, I don't mind writing the SQL myself, I rarely need to make
a particular statement work on two databases in my work, and I can
optimize a lot better
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:35 +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
> Ups, I hoped that the type system would find out mismatches of the
> objects actual structure and the methods expectations of it. Essentially
> rendering the method in question not applicable to the object anymore.
I'm not sure th
Larry Wall wrote:
$x is visible only in the rest of the lexical scope. In contrast,
$_y would presumably still be visible if the class were reopened.
Which brings me to the question how the name information is told
to a prospective user if the source code of the the first definition
shall not
Larry Wall wrote:
The problem I have with "is private" is that, while there may very
well be a trait of that name that you can interrogate, I really
want people to think of the private methods as being in a different
namespace so that there's no confusion about the fact that you can
have a privat
Third time's the charm...really. Please ignore the last two messages from
me in favor of this one please. Sigh**2.
---
On 7/22/05 11:37 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> The problem I have with "is private" is that, while there may very
> well be a trait of that name that you can interrogate, I really
>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:53:45AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > $x is visible only in the rest of the lexical scope. In contrast,
: > $_y would presumably still be visible if the class were reopened.
:
: This strikes me as an exceedingly bad i
Ack, I screwed up that last email with some bad copy and paste. Ignore it
in favor of this one please :)
---
On 7/22/05 11:37 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> The problem I have with "is private" is that, while there may very
> well be a trait of that name that you can interrogate, I really
> want people
On 7/22/05 11:37 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> The problem I have with "is private" is that, while there may very
> well be a trait of that name that you can interrogate, I really
> want people to think of the private methods as being in a different
> namespace so that there's no confusion about the fact
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:35:30AM -0500, Collin Winter wrote:
: > I'm not married to the colon. Speaking of traits and adverbs, why not use
: > one of those in the "has" declaration instead? That'd certainly be a lot
: > more explicit than the magic leading underscore (although I'm at a loss as
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:04:24AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: On 21/07/05, Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > But is there any other case where we need an explicit tail call with "goto"?
:
: When the callee uses `caller
Which we may not know, especially if we're tail-ca
Brent,
On Jul 22, 2005, at 3:53 AM, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
(If not this, I at least would like to see a way to make roles and/or
class extensions optionally merge their namespace with the class
they're being composed into; a simple 'is merged' on the
role/extension's definition might do
On 21/07/05, Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But is there any other case where we need an explicit tail call with "goto"?
When the callee uses `caller
--
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl and Parrot hacker
> I'm not married to the colon. Speaking of traits and adverbs, why not use
> one of those in the "has" declaration instead? That'd certainly be a lot
> more explicit than the magic leading underscore (although I'm at a loss as
> to what the trait would be named...)
I'd like to see an "is privat
Larry,
On Jul 21, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:15:34PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: This means that Roles are now first-class-ish things. Meaning they
: cannot just simply be composed into classes since now we have to
keep a
: table of elements which are priv
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $x is visible only in the rest of the lexical scope. In contrast,
> $_y would presumably still be visible if the class were reopened.
This strikes me as an exceedingly bad idea.
Encapsulation is a very good thing, and I'm glad it's being added to
Perl 6.
18 matches
Mail list logo
