HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
Or we could say that you can't reopen the Num role; you can only
reopen the Num class and mix in the Complex role. That's where it
stands at the moment.
This is not too bad an outcome. One question though: is the
augmentation of the class lexically scoped? Or does a m
TSa writes:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>
> >role Num is also does Complex {
> > method im {...}
> >}
>
> Is that the actual syntax?
Larry's words that you snipped introducing that code fragment were:
We might *possibly* get away with reopening roles like we can reopen a
class:
It see
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
role Num is also does Complex {
method im {...}
}
Is that the actual syntax? I mean is it the keyword pair
'is also' or does 'also' by itself have a meaning? With
a more natural 'role Num also does Complex'.
but roles are really supposed to be fairly
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
For now (because of this example, in fact), I'm inclined to change the
proposal to "please don't design the language to prevent a module from
implementing supertyping". I think disallowing reopening of roles
will prevent that.
I might not have formulated it this way
