TSa wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> TSa wrote:
> > Dispatch depends on a partial ordering of roles.
>
> Could someone please give me an example to illustrate what is meant by
> "partial ordering" here?
In addition to Matt Fowles explanation I would like to
give the following example lattice build
Brad Bowman wrote:
TSa wrote:
> TSa wrote:
>> Note that the superclass interface of roles should be mostly inferred
>> from the usage of next METHOD. As such it is a useful guidance for
>> error reports in the class composition process.
>
> Actually 'next METHOD' doesn't catch all superclass inte
TSa wrote:
TSa wrote:
Note that the superclass interface of roles should be mostly inferred
from the usage of next METHOD. As such it is a useful guidance for
error reports in the class composition process.
Actually 'next METHOD' doesn't catch all superclass interface issues.
There is the simp
Author: larry
Date: Tue Oct 10 16:55:33 2006
New Revision: 13022
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Clarification of non-ambiguity of «*»
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S0
At 4:08 PM +0200 10/10/06, TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Darren Duncan wrote:
Within a system that already has an underlying set-like type, the
Junction in this case, a test for uniqueness is (pardon any
spelling):
all(@items).elements.size === @items.size
The all() will strip any duplicates, so if t
The example in S05 under "Subpattern numbering" isn't quite complex
enough to give the reader a full understanding of the ramifications of
the re-numbering that occurs with alternations, especially with respect
to the combination of capturing and non-capturing subpatterns. I've
written a small
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 02:17:50PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: $str ~~ s(/pat) = "replacement";
Er, cut-n-paste error. Make that:
$str ~~ s[pat] = "replacement";
Larry
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:49:11PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis 2006-10-09 0:22 (-0700):
: > P5's s[pat][repl] syntax is dead, now use s[pat] = "repl"
:
: Why keep the s?
Because @Larry felt it was better to keep the intent out in front.
: substr works perfectly as both rvalu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis 2006-10-09 0:22 (-0700):
> P5's s[pat][repl] syntax is dead, now use s[pat] = "repl"
Why keep the s?
substr works perfectly as both rvalue and lvalue, and I think m[], also
known as //, can do the same. No need to do things based on delimiter
(bracket versus non-bracket
Author: larry
Date: Tue Oct 10 13:09:12 2006
New Revision: 13019
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
typo from wolverian++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod(or
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 04:07:37PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: S03 says that hypers recurse into subarrays.
:
: That's a nice and useful feature, but that not-recursing is even more
: useful. Especially given that many objects will probably does Array, you
: want to be explicit about recursion.
:
: S0
Author: larry
Date: Tue Oct 10 12:16:52 2006
New Revision: 13016
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Clarified dwimminess relationship to * list extension.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/tr
Author: larry
Date: Tue Oct 10 12:10:23 2006
New Revision: 13015
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Forgot to update version and date.
Also forgot to mention self-extending lists using *. :)
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
=
Author: larry
Date: Tue Oct 10 11:57:24 2006
New Revision: 13014
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
For hypers, break out dimensional dwimmery from ordinary shape processing.
Dwimming hyperinfixes now point the small end at the "runt".
Unaries never dwim. :)
Modified: doc/trunk/des
HaloO,
Darren Duncan wrote:
Within a system that already has an underlying set-like type, the
Junction in this case, a test for uniqueness is (pardon any spelling):
all(@items).elements.size === @items.size
The all() will strip any duplicates, so if the number of elements in
all(@items) is
Markus Laire wrote:
According to S02 bare curlies do interpolate in double-quoted strings:
Yeah; that was subsequently pointed out to me. Oops.
--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
On 10/9/06, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Smylers wrote:
> To be consistent your proposal should also suggest that these become
> equivalent:
>
> * "{ function() }"
> * qq[ {function() }]
> * qq{ function() }
> * eval "function()"
How so? AFAIK, string literal syntax requires you to
17 matches
Mail list logo
