Larry Wall wrote:
> But also note that there are several other ways to predeclare
> types implicitly. The 'use', 'require', and 'need' declarations
> all introduce a module name that is assumed to be a type name.
Just to clarify: it's possible to define a module within a file,
rather than as a fi
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 12:23:50AM +0100, Carl Mäsak wrote:
: Another thing I started thinking about: if Perl 6 professes to be able
: to put on the hat -- syntactically and semantically -- of most any
: other programming language out there, through the use of a simple 'use
: Language::Java' or 'us
Larry (>):
> [Long exposition on the philosophy of predeclaration]
>
> Hope this helps, or I just wasted a lot of time. :-)
It did help. Thanks.
A comment on one part, though:
> But I also think that type recursion is likelier to indicate a design
> error than function recursion [...]
I do too
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:55:15PM -0500, Solomon Foster wrote:
: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 05:55:47PM +0100, Carl Mäsak wrote:
: >> Is it allowed to do 'class B { ... }' several times in different files
: >> before finally declaring the
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 17:46, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > There's a third way:
> >
> >class B { ... }# introduce B as a class name without definition
> > class A { sub foo { B::bar } }
> >
> >class B { sub bar { A
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 05:55:47PM +0100, Carl Mäsak wrote:
>> Is it allowed to do 'class B { ... }' several times in different files
>> before finally declaring the real B? If so, then I'd consider it
>> equivalent to my proposed keyword
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 05:55:47PM +0100, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> Is it allowed to do 'class B { ... }' several times in different files
> before finally declaring the real B? If so, then I'd consider it
> equivalent to my proposed keyword, and thus there'd be no need for the
> latter.
Yes. And "decl
Author: lwall
Date: 2010-02-01 21:33:47 +0100 (Mon, 01 Feb 2010)
New Revision: 29605
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
Log:
[S02,S03,S04] more @@ removal; some s/Capture/Parcel/ cleanup
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-
Author: lwall
Date: 2010-02-01 21:14:16 +0100 (Mon, 01 Feb 2010)
New Revision: 29604
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
Log:
[S02,S06] continue de-confusing flat and eager
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
==
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 10:10:11AM -0800, yary wrote:
: A slight digression on a point of fact-
:
: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
: ...
: > You are correct that the one-pass parsing is non-negotiable; this is
: > how humans think, even when dealing with unknown names.
:
: It'
A slight digression on a point of fact-
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
...
> You are correct that the one-pass parsing is non-negotiable; this is
> how humans think, even when dealing with unknown names.
It's common for people to read a passage twice when encountering
somethin
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> But I also think that type recursion is likelier to indicate a design
> error than function recursion, so I'm not sure how far down this road
> we want to go. We could, for instance, create a new type name every
I was going to say "I use self-r
Please don't assume that rakudo's idiosyncracies and design fossils
are canonical. STD does better namespace management in some respects,
particularly in accepting the approved predeclaration form:
class Foo {...}
(and rakudo might now accept this too).
You don't want to use augment for thi
[This notice is going out a bit late; the release was indeed
produced on time, but I was delayed in sending out this notice.
With apologies for the delay... --Pm]
On behalf of the Rakudo development team, I'm pleased to announce the
January 2010 development release of Rakudo Perl #25 "Minneapolis
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 17:46, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> There's a third way:
>
>class B { ... }# introduce B as a class name without definition
> class A { sub foo { B::bar } }
>
>class B { sub bar { A::foo } }
>
> The first line is a literal "..." in the body of the class -- it
Patrick (>), Carl (>>):
>> I found two ways. Either one uses C (the language construct
>> formerly known as C):
>>
>> class B {}
>> class A { sub foo { B::bar } }
>> augment class B { sub bar { A::foo } }
>>
>> ...or one may use the C<::> notation to index a type using a string value:
>>
>>
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 06:35:14PM +0100, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> I found two ways. Either one uses C (the language construct
> formerly known as C):
>
> class B {}
> class A { sub foo { B::bar } }
> augment class B { sub bar { A::foo } }
>
> ...or one may use the C<::> notation to index a type
Moritz (>), Carl (>>):
>> But on another level, the level of types, Perl 6 makes it fairly
>> *un*natural that the type C refers to the type C, which in
>> turn refers to the type C.
>
> True, and that has also been bothering me quite a bit.
>
> The "solution" is to always write ::Typename instead
Carl Mäsak wrote:
> But on another level, the level of types, Perl 6 makes it fairly
> *un*natural that the type C refers to the type C, which in
> turn refers to the type C.
True, and that has also been bothering me quite a bit.
The "solution" is to always write ::Typename instead of Typename...
19 matches
Mail list logo
