On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 05:09 PM, David Storrs wrote:
==QUESTION
- Page 8 says "In some languages, all methods are multimethods." I
believe that Java is one of these. Is that right and what are some
others? (This is really just curiousity.)
==/
Doesn't C++ work this way? Also I believe P
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 02:13 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I don't think that junctions make sense here. Besides, the "is" is
optional:
class Foo {
method bar is public rw const frob knob { ... }
}
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about this. Thanks. Still I wond
This may have been asked before, and I apologize if I somehow missed it,
but can junctions be used for multiple properties?
I can see it possibly being useful in a situation like the
following(which may be completely off, as I'm still digging my way
through A6):
class Foo {
method bar is p
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 05:36 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
Chris Dutton wrote:
@ages[*] = $today - %date_of_birth{@names}.values[*]
Well done. Thanks for working that out, Chris. And, in the process,
confirming my sense that vector ops are a better solution here.
;-)
Glad I could
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 02:13 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
The remaining big question, then, is whether you can truly subclass
Array to achieve C-like behavior:
class MyArray is Array { ... };
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 11:20 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Chris Dutton wrote:
Given discussions about "hyper" operators in the past, I found this
rather interesting in the release notes.
http://pike.idonex.com/download/notes/7.4.10.xml
Interesting, but I still feel that
On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 12:00 PM, Chris Dutton wrote:
print "date" if 1..31 given $var;
Except that this would always be true. Nevermind, I'm an idiot.
On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 08:55 AM, Smylers wrote:
Murat Ünalan wrote:
print "date" if $var is int( 1..31 );
I don't think that the type needs to be specified here, especially if
the variable has already been declared to be of the required type, so a
junction should be sufficient:
pri
Given discussions about "hyper" operators in the past, I found this
rather interesting in the release notes.
http://pike.idonex.com/download/notes/7.4.10.xml
Automap
To perform per-element operations on arrays, there is now a convenience
syntax for map(), that can make code more readable in som
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 01:11 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
We can make that
@out = @in.grep({...}).map({...}).sort;# [2]
if we want to grind our OO axe, but I find that syntax disappointing.
I like that the idea is important enough in Perl to have it's own
grammar, but I rea
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Brent Dax wrote
To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references anymore.
They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever
symbols.
I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my brain
bette
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 10:03 PM, John Siracusa wrote:
On 10/31/02 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway writes:
BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
in January, when we spent a week thr
So many operators...
It's now clear what we need. Unicode operators. That should buy us at
least another week to hash out the rest of the necessary operators. ;-)
It'd also silence the legions of critics who complain about Perl being
too easy to read if we, for instance, used the Kanji charac
Or we could go with Valspeak:
$a is like $b and stuff
At the moment I like "like" the best, actually...
Hmmm... I could actually see "like" in a more active role. Along the
lines of:
my str $string;
my $other_string is like $string;
Analogous to saying:
my str $other_string
Except th
On Saturday, October 12, 2002, at 01:10 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 08:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> If we use | and & as sugar for any() and all(), then their precedence
>> should probably be the same as || and &&.
>
> Should they? I had i
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 05:03 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
>>
>> Uh-oh: my life is gonna suck. I've spent days hunting obscure bugs
>> that were caused by a single mistyped character. Now I'll be spending
>> days hunting obsc
One first thing I notice while I'm supposed to be doing homework. :-)
Wasn't "class MyClass;" supposed to work along the line of Perl5's
"package MyClass;" and make everything following that statement the
definition of MyClass?
On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 12:57 AM, Noah White wrote:
>>
>>> Note that an alternate definition of "private" is often used, as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>> A "private" attribute is an attribute whose scope is restricted
>>> such that
>>> it may be accessed only within the class in which it
On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 06:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:13:45AM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
>>> How exactly does one "weaken" a precondition?
>>
>> At least in Eiffel, if you redefine a method, you may not give it
On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 05:19 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:59:08PM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
>> With pre/post conditions, a subclass is allowed to weaken the
>> preconditions or strengthen the postconditions.
>
> How exactly does one "weaken" a precondition
On Monday, September 30, 2002, at 11:19 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 06:04:28PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
>> On a slightly different note, if we have interfaces then I'd really
>> like to follow the Eiffel model: features such as renaming methods
>> in the derived class
We are supposedly going to be able to set a class to be
"uninheritable". Will we be able to set a single method or attribute to
be uniherited by any subclasses? Please forgive me if this is one of
the seven deadly OO sins. I haven't yet had any formal education with
regards to programming(a
Explained far more throughly at http://pike.ida.liu.se/ than I can in an
e-mail.
It really looks like an intriguing language, with a (supposedly) very
fast runtime, (again, supposedly) beating Perl, Python, Tcl, and Java in
execution times. Unfortunately I've been unable to get it to compile
and this just jumped out at me:
class Foo {
private string|int bar;
static create(string|int newBar) {
bar = newBar;
}
}
In other words, as I understand it, you can type the variable bar as
either an int or a string.
Aside from simply, "my $bar;", w
On Monday, August 12, 2002, at 01:27 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 07:30:19PM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
>>
>> The only problem I could see, and I wanted to wait for at least one
>> other opinion before mentioning this, is rewriting the above as
On Saturday, August 10, 2002, at 06:25 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Chris Dutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Since Adam Lopesto asked a non-regex question, I don't feel quite as
>> out of place for doing the same.
>>
>> This one actually came
Since Adam Lopesto asked a non-regex question, I don't feel quite as out
of place for doing the same.
This one actually came to me just the other night. Would it be possible
in Perl 6 to create "anonymous classes"? Something like:
my $foo_class = class {
method new {
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 10:17 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 13:58, Chris Dutton wrote:
>
>> method world is public_to(Bar) {
>
> Might as well make that:
>
> method world is private(Bar)
>
> I tend to take any opportunity to recy
On Sunday, May 12, 2002, at 02:18 PM, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>> While thinking Eiffel-ish thoughts the other day, I began to wonder if
>> Perl6's classes could go beyond the simple private/public/protected
>> scheme by optionally allowing for a property or method to only be
>> accessed by a cert
While thinking Eiffel-ish thoughts the other day, I began to wonder if
Perl6's classes could go beyond the simple private/public/protected
scheme by optionally allowing for a property or method to only be
accessed by a certain set of classes. For instance(as I understand
Perl6 syntax):
class
On Friday, May 10, 2002, at 09:54 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> That's getting a little ugly, so maybe we'd "lift" the syntax from
> Eiffel instead:
>
> method set_baz($newbaz is like($.baz)) { $.baz = $newbaz }
This is exactly what went through my mind about a half second after I
posted
On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 03:16 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Then you can declare them as such:
>
> sub get_bar() { .bar }
> sub get_baz() { .baz }
> sub set_baz($newbaz) { .baz = $newbaz }
Seeing this, an idea mildly Eiffel-ish comes to mind. Could we get away
with somethin
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 01:22 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:07 PM -0400 4/30/02, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>> > Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting
>> C ;-)
>>
>> Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep,
>> elstry ...
>
> Has anyone brought
33 matches
Mail list logo
