Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 14 17:32:58 2006
New Revision: 11986
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod
Log:
typo from TimToady--++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod(o
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 14 17:31:33 2006
New Revision: 11985
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod
Log:
and the date was the wrong year...
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.p
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 14 17:29:26 2006
New Revision: 11984
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod
Log:
type from TreyHarris++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod(o
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 14 17:22:14 2006
New Revision: 11983
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod
Log:
Added a bit of overview of the project plan. ["'bout time!"]
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S01.pod
==
---
Aaron Sherman wrote:
>Is the goal to avoid namespace pollution? If so, shouldn't there be a
>truly "metaish" way of getting at the internal namespace so that someone
>doesn't accidentally render an object unusable by defining the wrong
>method name (which you can prevent with an error if the ob
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 14 10:03:33 2006
New Revision: 11982
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
clarfications of .$op indirection
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.po
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 14 09:40:13 2006
New Revision: 11981
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Now make use of .'op' to force prefix interpretation of op, removing bad dwim
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 14 09:28:33 2006
New Revision: 11980
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
Added .'foo' and ."bar" forms to address various concerns of ajs++ and #perl6++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:20:31AM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
.META is more correct at the moment.
Does making it all upper caps really help? It's still a pollution of the
method space, any way that you look at it...
Yeah but perl has already h
I was looking over an example of named parameter passing:
foo(:a<1>, :b<2>)
And had the thought that we might be able to get away with treating
named parameters as lvalues, making the above:
foo(:a=1, :b=2)
Would this be unreasonable? Does it break anything else? I'm not sure
10 matches
Mail list logo
