TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> Em Ter, 2009-02-17 às 09:19 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
>>> multi infix:<+> (int where { 2 } $i, int where { 2 } $j) {...}
>>
>> As masak++ and moritz++ pointed out, this should be written
>>
>> multi infix:<+> (int $i where 2, int $j where 2) {
Something that may possibly be relevant to this discussion as an object lesson
...
In the near future, probably next week, I'm going to re-implement the guts of my
Set::Relation module (for Perl 5, on CPAN now), from an eagerly evaluated
sometimes mutable or immutable object, to a often-lazily
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, TSa wrote:
> I fully agree that immutability is not a property of types in a signature.
> But a signature should have a purity lock :(Int $i is pure) that snapshots
> an object state
[...]
> Note that this purity lock doesn't lock the outer object. It is only
> affecting the i
TSa wrote:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
The problem is that you can't really know wether a value is immutable or
not, we presume a literal 1 to be immutable, but even if you
receive :(Int $i), it doesn't mean $i is immutable, because that
signature only checks if $i ~~ Int, which actually results in
$i.d
HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Ter, 2009-02-17 às 09:19 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
multi infix:<+> (int where { 2 } $i, int where { 2 } $j) {...}
As masak++ and moritz++ pointed out, this should be written
multi infix:<+> (int $i where 2, int $j where 2) {...}
Hmm, both these forms strik
HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
The problem is that you can't really know wether a value is immutable or
not, we presume a literal 1 to be immutable, but even if you
receive :(Int $i), it doesn't mean $i is immutable, because that
signature only checks if $i ~~ Int, which actually results in
$i.does(
Em Ter, 2009-02-17 às 09:19 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
> multi infix:<+> (int where { 2 } $i, int where { 2 } $j) {...}
As masak++ and moritz++ pointed out, this should be written
multi infix:<+> (int $i where 2, int $j where 2) {...}
daniel
Em Seg, 2009-02-16 às 21:21 -0800, Darren Duncan escreveu:
> marking it as consisting of just immutable values, and in the
> routines case marking it as having no side effects
The problem is that you can't really know wether a value is immutable or
not, we presume a literal 1 to be immutable, but
