> "AT" == Audrey Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AT> Indeed. So instead of having the implementions define the language,
AT> this time around the specs, and tests, and API documentations, need
AT> to be adhered closely by implementors, which is why we're all talking
AT> together in #
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 09:11:44PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> And what about other types?
> e.g. if String can't ever be "best candidate" for Int, then does that
> mean that neither can Int ever be "best candidate" for Num, because
> they are different types?
Well, I think Num and Int *aren't* d
I'm sending this also to perl6-language, in case someone there knows
an answer to this.
On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think so. I think the "best candidate" prose is about
choosing from types that have been specified, not autoconverting
between types such tha
Author: audreyt
Date: Fri Jun 23 07:55:16 2006
New Revision: 9717
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
* S06: Correct an extra comma in the comment:
for @foo, sub { ... }
should be written as
for @foo sub { ... }
if the sub is to be taken as the loop body.
Modified: doc/tru
