Stevan Little wrote:
> ^Dog is an instance of the MetaClass, while Dog (no ^ sigil) is the
> "class" (actually it's a prototypical instance of the class which the
> metaclass ^Dog describes, but you dont really need to know that to use
> it).
>
> ^Dog.can(bark) # false
> Dog.can(bark) # true
HaloO,
this sort of follows up on the
'Re: Junctions again (was Re: binding arguments)'
thread. The point I tried to make there is that
the optimizer needs the permission to change boolean
checks in the prime boolean block controller 'if'
and its friends like unless, while etc.
Of course certain
HaloO,
I'm still trying to understand the concept of context
in Perl6 from a typing perspective. My current interpretation
let me to coin three levels of typing in Perl6: syntactic, static
and dynamic. I guess the latter two are well known but the syntactic
type is new---at least do I hope so. Ple
HaloO,
Luke wrote:
> I just proved that < is not transitive.
>
> I can do that for every boolean operator that Perl has. They no
> longer have any general properties, so you can't write code based on
> assumptions that they do. In particular, testing whether all
> elements in a list are equal g
HaloO,
Luke wrote:
> Okay, now why don't you tell us about this new binary :: you're proposing.
Well, not a new one. Just plain old foo::bar::blahh and 'my ::blubb $x'
with relaxed whitespace rules. The ternary ?? :: is a splinter in my
mind's eye because it is not a compile time or symbol lookup
HaloO,
Luke wrote:
> > > ?? !! ain't bad either.
> >
> > It's definitely much better that sabotaging the
> > (highly useful) // operator
> > within (highly useful) ternaries.
>
> I guess the thing that I really think is nice is getting :: out of
> that role and into the type-only domain.
Right
HaloO,
I'm still contemplating how to get rid of the :: in the
ternary and make :: unequivocally available for a type
sigil and as a binary infix for symbol lookup.
Here's a possible solution:
1) ?? becomes a binary operator that behaves as follows:
a) it evaluates its lhs in boolean context
HaloO,
Luke wrote:
> Isn't the point of lexical scoping so that you don't have to worry
> whether somebody else called something the same thing you did? I can
> picture this:
>
>multi combine (Any $x, Any $y) { ZCombinator.new($x, $y) }
>multi combine (@x, @y) { ZList.new([ @x, @
Juerd wrote:
> The only real problem with having only infix := for binding, is that you
> can't easily use an alias (aka transparent reference) in a list. You can
> have an array of aliases, but it's harder to have an array or hash in
> which one element is an alias. Binding can be done explicitly:
Luke wrote:
> Both transparent dereferencing (infinite $$foo) and
> opaque dereferencing (one-level $$foo) have their uses, but they are
> definitely distinct.
Well, they are more like variations on a theme.
> Instead of adding different syntax for each
> kind, I'll propose something different:
Luke wrote:
> Both transparent dereferencing (infinite $$foo) and
> opaque dereferencing (one-level $$foo) have their uses, but they are
> definitely distinct.
Well, they are more like variations on a theme.
> Instead of adding different syntax for each
> kind, I'll propose something different:
Luke wrote:
> Both transparent dereferencing (infinite $$foo) and
> opaque dereferencing (one-level $$foo) have their uses, but they are
> definitely distinct.
Well, they are more like variations on a theme.
> Instead of adding different syntax for each
> kind, I'll propose something differen
12 matches
Mail list logo
