Luke Palmer wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Agreed. The question is whether you think of a role as a set of
> methods ("intension set") or as a set of instances ("extension set").
> FWIW, it wasn't until this thread that I even registered that the
> latter possibility existed. Given the above con
Author: larry
Date: Wed Dec 13 17:50:39 2006
New Revision: 13490
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Log:
Generalized the do/gather syntax to other similar dynamic scoping constructs.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
==
In spite of Larry's comments, I will continue to entertain this idea
until it is solid to myself that I would be comfortable accepting it.
On 12/13/06, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agreed. The question is whether you think of a role as a set of
methods ("intension set") or as a set
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 11:01:10AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Of course, it's also possible that the flipside is true--that
: gather/take is just another normal way to set up interthread queueing,
: if the thread is spawned in the dynamic scope of the gather.
: Under that view all the subthreads sh
Of course, it's also possible that the flipside is true--that
gather/take is just another normal way to set up interthread queueing,
if the thread is spawned in the dynamic scope of the gather.
Under that view all the subthreads share the outer dynamic scope.
Maybe that's saner...
Larry
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 11:25:40AM +, Smylers wrote:
: Jonathan Lang writes:
:
: > For the record, I think that "superdoes" should be spelled "done_by".
:
: I think it's unlikely that Larry will incorporate any keywords that
: contain underscores -- certainly not without at least searching fo
TSa wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Assuming that I understand the terminology correctly, I'll go further
> and say that one of the big differences between roles and subtypes
> (using the terms in their perl 6 contexts) is that roles conceptually
> operate on intension sets - everything about them
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:44:39PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Suppose I have a gather block that spawns several threads, each of which
: calls take several times. Obviously, the relative order of items returned
: from take in different threads is indeterminate, but is it at least
: guaranteed tha
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
Woah, that was a terrible passage. Let's try again. If your
declaration is "role Foo superdoes Bar".
* it is illegal to add a required method to Foo if Bar doesn't
already implement it or require it
With "required method" you mean an unimplemented method with a
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Assuming that I understand the terminology correctly, I'll go further
and say that one of the big differences between roles and subtypes
(using the terms in their perl 6 contexts) is that roles conceptually
operate on intension sets - everything about them is defined
Jonathan Lang schreef:
> what we need here is something that very
> clearly says "the reverse form of 'does'": if A does B, then B ___ A.
> Far more important that if it's one word or two is: "what fits most
> naturally in the gap?"
follows, trails, tracks, enforces, obeys, tolerates, enacts, end
Smylers wrote:
Jonathan Lang writes:
> For the record, I think that "superdoes" should be spelled "done_by".
I think it's unlikely that Larry will incorporate any keywords that
contain underscores -- certainly not without at least searching for a
single word that sums up the concept in question.
TSa wrote:
Secondly I figure you are operating on the extension set a role
defines. That is union produces a supertype aka the larger set
of instances. This is in accordance to the usual type theory
approach. Note that Jonathan operates on the intension set of roles
that is union produces a subty
TSa schreef:
> Smylers:
>> Jonathan Lang:
>>> For the record, I think that "superdoes" should be spelled
>>> "done_by".
>>
>> I think it's unlikely that Larry will incorporate any keywords that
>> contain underscores -- certainly not without at least searching for a
>> single word that sums up the
HaloO,
Smylers wrote:
Jonathan Lang writes:
For the record, I think that "superdoes" should be spelled "done_by".
I think it's unlikely that Larry will incorporate any keywords that
contain underscores -- certainly not without at least searching for a
single word that sums up the concept in
HaloO Luke,
good to hear from you again!
you wrote:
I'd tend to agree. This is an important feature of an object system
for me,
And I hope for the rest of @Larry, too.
There is a nice duality in this specification. When you say:
role Foo does Bar does Baz {...}
You are saying Foo = B
Jonathan Lang writes:
> For the record, I think that "superdoes" should be spelled "done_by".
I think it's unlikely that Larry will incorporate any keywords that
contain underscores -- certainly not without at least searching for a
single word that sums up the concept in question.
Smylers
Luke Palmer wrote:
When you say:
role Foo superdoes Bar superdoes Baz {...}
You are saying Foo = Bar (+) Baz (+) ...; # union of Bar, Baz, and
the following spec
For the record, I think that "superdoes" should be spelled "done_by".
It may seem like that should be Foo = (Bar (+) Baz) (*)
18 matches
Mail list logo
