I feel like you're focusing on the wrong thing somehow. The issue is not
that what nqp is doing is somehow wrong. The issue is that the thing it is
doing is necessarily an implementation detail, and as such should be
isolated from the language level and any failures/errors exposed as
language level
I guess I wasn't clear in what I was asking:
What, exactly, was it that NQP was doing? What were the inputs and what was
the behavior that you observed? So far, all I have to go on is one example
that you feel is not illustrating the broken behavior of NQP that you want
to work around with a chang
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Jon Lang wrote:
> So what is the assuming method, and why is it in a callable role? What was
> the logic behind that decision?
It's perfectly sensible: it's how you implement partial application (which
as sadly usual is mis-called "currying"). &some-callable.ass
So what is the assuming method, and why is it in a callable role? What was
the logic behind that decision?
On Nov 14, 2016 1:38 PM, "Brandon Allbery" wrote:
> This should probably have been cc-d to the list.
>
> Callable claims to be the thing we want. What it actually is, is a mix-in
> that add
This should probably have been cc-d to the list.
Callable claims to be the thing we want. What it actually is, is a mix-in
that adds the assuming method. I am not sure these can be conflated.
Note that the current docs actually do claim it is what I want. This is
because I first brought this up i
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> So, you said that the problem arises because NQP does something
> non-obvious that results in this error. Can you be clear on what that
> non-obvious behavior is? It sounds to me like you're addressing a symptom
> of a systemic issue.
That
So, you said that the problem arises because NQP does something non-obvious
that results in this error. Can you be clear on what that non-obvious
behavior is? It sounds to me like you're addressing a symptom of a systemic
issue.
Aaron Sherman, M.:
P: 617-440-4332 Google Talk, Email and Google Plu
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I do think, though that if the concern is really with "the 4 cases when
> nqp hauls a CALL-ME out of its bowels" then that's what should be
> addressed...
>
The main addressing of that is some kind of role to abstract it properly. I
just th
Fair points, all.
I do think, though that if the concern is really with "the 4 cases when nqp
hauls a CALL-ME out of its bowels" then that's what should be addressed...
Aaron Sherman, M.:
P: 617-440-4332 Google Talk, Email and Google Plus: a...@ajs.com
Toolsmith, developer, gamer and life-long
Also...
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Role-based testing seems very perl6ish. I'd suggest the role name be
> "Invocable" with much the sort of signature as you've described.
If it's Invokable then the method should probably be INVOKE. It still
leaves the question of w
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> That being said, I don't think that the current error is terrible. It
> clearly shows that the issue is with the attempt to invoke a Bool.
In that situation it is obvious, because I took the simplest of the 4 cases
when nqp hauls a CALL-ME
Role-based testing seems very perl6ish. I'd suggest the role name be
"Invocable" with much the sort of signature as you've described.
That being said, I don't think that the current error is terrible. It
clearly shows that the issue is with the attempt to invoke a Bool.
Aaron Sherman, M.:
P: 617
This started out some weeks ago as a user in #perl6 confused by an error
that gofled down to:
[28 19:01:37] m: my Bool $x = False; $x()
[28 19:01:38] rakudo-moar 0dc6f7: OUTPUT«No such method 'CALL-ME'
for invocant of type 'Bool'
This is, at the very least, LTA. But it also got me thinking abou
13 matches
Mail list logo
